Musidora

Evenhuis, Neal L. & Pape, Thomas, 2017, Battling the un-dead: the status of the Diptera genus-group names originally proposed in Johann Wilhelm Meigen’s 1800 pamphlet, Zootaxa 4275 (1), pp. 1-74 : 42

36. Musidora

[ Musidora ] Meigen, 1800: 30.

CURRENT STATUS: Unavailable name; work suppressed for the purposes of zoological nomenclature by action of I.C.Z.N. (1963: 339 [Opinion 678]); treated under Lonchoptera Meigen, 1803 [teste Andersson (1991: 140)].

[Muscidora] Bezzi, 1907a: 56.

CURRENT STATUS: Unavailable name; criteria to make the name available not fulfilled in this work. REMARKS: Bezzi (1907a) included this name (incorrect subsequent spelling of Musidora ) only in a list of Meigen 1800 names without stating their availability.

Musidora Meigen in Hendel, 1908: 59 .

ORIGINALLY INCLUDED SPECIES: None.

FIRST INCLUDED SPECIES: Lonchoptera lutea Meigen in Panzer, 1809 (in Coquillett 1910b: 377).

TYPE SPECIES: Lonchoptera lutea Meigen in Panzer, 1809 , by subsequent designation ( Coquillett 1910b: 377).

CURRENT STATUS: Junior synonym of Lonchoptera Meigen, 1803 . New Synonymy.

FAMILY: LONCHOPTERIDAE .

REMARKS: Musidora was originally proposed by Meigen (1800: 30) without included species and later made unavailable by the suppression of the entire work for the purposes of zoological nomenclature by action of the I.C.Z.N. (1963: 339 [Opinion 678]). Hendel (1908: 59) was the first after Meigen (1800) to give characters to differentiate the taxon (reproducing Meigen’s characters) and to treat Musidora as valid, which makes the name available from that work with Meigen as author. Hendel (1908) did not include any species. Coquillett (1910b: 377) was the first to include a species: Lonchoptera lutea Meigen in Panzer, 1809 , which is the type species by subsequent designation. Lonchoptera lutea Meigen in Panzer, 1809 is currently treated in Lonchoptera Meigen, 1803 [teste Andersson (1991: 140)], which makes Musidora Meigen in Hendel, 1908 a junior synonym of Lonchoptera Meigen, 1803 , n. syn. Stone (1941: 412) missed Coquillett’s (1910b) paper and unnecessarily designated the same type species.