Phytomyza Fallen, 1810

Lonsdale, Owen, 2021, Manual of North American Agromyzidae (Diptera, Schizophora), with revision of the fauna of the " Delmarva " states, ZooKeys 1051, pp. 1-481 : 1

Phytomyza Fallen

Phytomyza Fallén, 1810: 10. Type species: Phytomyza flaveola Fallén, 1810 [= Musca ranunculi Schrank, 1803], by monotypy. Frick 1952a: 421, 1959: 420; Spencer 1969: 218; Spencer and Steyskal 1986b: 172; Winkler et al. 2009: 260; Papp and Černý 2020: 175.

Phytomyia . Misspelling. Haliday, 1833: 150.

Napomyza Curtis, 1837: 282 [attributed to Haliday manuscript name]. Type species: Phytomyza nigricornis Macquart 1835, by monotypy.

Napomyza Westwood, 1840: 152 [as subgenus of Phytomyza ]. Type species: Phytomyza festiva Meigen, 1830 [= Phytomyza elegans Meigen, 1830], by monotypy by first reviser action of Hendel (1920). Hendel 1920: 111 [attrib. to Haliday; as genus]; Frick 1952a: 419, 1959: 419; Spencer 1969: 210; Griffiths and Steyskal 1986: 170 [proposed supression Napomyza Curtis]; Spencer and Steyskal 1986b: 167; Zlobin 1994: 289; ICZN 1988: 77 [suppression of Napomyza Curtis]; Winkler et al. 2009: 271 [as subgenus]; Papp and Černý 2020: 121.

Chromatomyia Hardy, 1849: 390. Type species Phytomyza periclymeni de Meijere, 1924 (misidentified as Phytomyza obscurella Fallén, 1823 by Hardy and Coquillett), by subsequent designation ( Coquillett 1910: 523) - see discussion in Griffiths (1974: 36). This name is not preoccupied by Chromatomyia Walker, as Walker’s name is not available. Braschnikov 1897: 40; Coquillett 1910: 523; Frick 1952a: 421 [as synonym of Phytomyza ]; Griffiths 1974: 36; Spencer and Steyskal 1986b: 173; Spencer 1987: 255; Papp 1984: 315 [as synonym of Phytomyza ]; Spencer and Martinez 1987: 255 [stat reinst.]; Winkler et al. 2009: 276 [as synonym of Phytomyza ]; Papp and Černý 2020: 19; von Tschirnhaus 2021: 105.

Dineura Lioy, 1864: 1315. Type species: Phytomyza festiva Meigen, 1830 [= Phytomyza elegans Meigen 1830], by original designation. Preoccupied by Dahlbom (1835) and Selys (1859).

Napomyia . Misspelling. Schiner, 1868: 227.

Phythomyza . Misspelling. Rondani, 1874: 51.

Lonicera . Error for Phytomyza . Meijere 1924: 147 [in describing and naming Phytomyza luteoscutellata Meijere on page 147, the genus group name of the host ( Lonicera ) was used for the fly genus; the correct combination is given on pages 126 and 147].

Ptochomyza Hering, 1942: 530. Type species: Ptochomyza asparagi Hering 1942, by original designation. Winkler et al. 2009: 282 [as subgenus]; Lonsdale 2015: 637.

Phytomyza is the most speciose genus of Agromyzidae with ca. 800 species worldwide, and certainly the most diverse with respect to morphology and host use. The classification of the group was developed by Winker et al. (2009) when they synonymized Chromatomyia , and included Napomyza and the small genus Ptochomyza as subgenera, finding that all of these rendered the larger Phytomyza paraphyletic. Further discussion is provided in Lonsdale (2015) and Lonsdale and Eiseman (2021).

Species of the subgenus Napomyza occur globally, occurring mostly towards the west in North America, and while none are yet known from the Delmarva states, it is likely that they will eventually be found. Zlobin (1994) discussed the characters used by Spencer to diagnose Napomyza , finding them to be plesiomorphic and not sufficient to maintain the genus as a separate entity. Zlobin instead provided tentative characters of the male genitalia, although similar characters are found in some Phytomyza s. s. and should be used with caution ( Winkler et al. 2009). Species of the subgenus Ptochomyza are mostly restricted to the Palaearctic Region; a minority also occur in the Afrotropics, as discussed by Lonsdale (2015).

In previous keys and diagnoses, the length of the fronto-orbital setae and the lengths of the costal sectors were used to differentiate those species of Phytomyza with a dark frons. These characters appear to vary much more widely than previously appreciated among many of those species, however, making them unreliable for diagnosis and they are not used in the key provided below. Male dissections should be made whenever possible to verify identifications, as genitalic characters in this genus are among the most complex and distinct of any Agromyzidae .