Drymeia Meigen, 1826

Savage, Jade & Sorokina, Vera S., 2021, Review of the North American fauna of Drymeia Meigen (Diptera, Muscidae) and evaluation of DNA barcodes for species-level identification in the genus, ZooKeys 1024, pp. 31-89 : 31

Drymeia Meigen, 1826

Drymeia Meigen, 1826: 204. Type species: Drymeia obscura Meigen, 1826 [= Musca hamata Fallén, 1823] (monotypy).

Drymia Agassiz, 1847: 130. Unjustified emendation of Drymeia Meigen.

Eriphia Meigen, 1826: 206. [Junior homonym of Eriphia Latreille, 1817: Crustacea] Type species: Eriphia cinerea Meigen, 1826 (monotypy).

Bebryx Gistl, 1848: ix. [Replacement name for Eriphia Meigen, 1826] Type species: Eriphia cinerea Meigen, 1826 (automatic).

Pogonomyia Rondani, 1871 [1870]: 336. Type species: Pogonomyia alpicola Rondani, 1871 (monotypy).

Neoeriphia Schnabl & Dziedzicki, 1911: 195 [as subgenus of Eriphia Meigen, 1826]. Type species: Eriphia metatarsata Stein, 1907 (monotypy).

Neopogonomyia Schnabl & Dziedzicki, 1911: 198 [as subgenus of Pogonomyia Rondani, 1871]. Type species: Aspilia brumalis Rondani, 1866, by designation of Séguy, 1923, Faune Fr., 6: 295. [ A. brumalis is listed by Schnabl and Dziedzicki as a junior synonym of meadei, and meadei is the first of two included species.]

Pogonomyioides Malloch, 1919: 67. Type species: Pogonomyioides atrata Malloch, 1919 [= Aricia segnis Holmgren, 1883] (original designation).

Eupogonomyia Malloch, 1921: 178. Type species: Eupogonomyia pribilofensis Malloch, 1921 (original designation).

Trichopticoides Ringdahl, 1931: 173. Type species: Musca decolor Fallén, 1824 [= Musca vicanus Harris, 1780] (monotypy).

Remarks.

While the exact systematic position of Drymeia remains debated ( Savage and Wheeler 2004; Kutty et al. 2014) its placement within the tribe Azeliini , subfamily Azeliinae is broadly accepted ( Carvalho et al. 2005; Sorokina and Pont 2010, 2015; Gregor et al. 2016). Monotypic until 1986, the limits of the genus were greatly expanded by a series of synonymies by Pont (1986) and Huckett and Vockeroth (1987) (see Sorokina and Pont 2015 for details). The monophyly of Drymeia is well-supported ( Savage and Wheeler 2004; Michelsen 2011) and a detailed generic description is provided in Savage and Wheeler (2004). Members of the group can be distinguished from other azeliines by the combination of at least three posterodorsal setae on the hind tibia (these not restricted to the apical 1/2), hind coxa bare on the posterodorsal surface, a black haltere, and gena usually broad with numerous upcurved setae. Females have the cruciate frontal setae present in all Nearctic species and the proclinate lower orbital setae often slightly lateroclinate. Males of most species in the Nearctic region exhibit a small to well-developed apical ventral projection on the hind tibia (Fig. 2A, C, F, G, H, I ) and a wide range of striking leg armature, especially on the mid femur (Fig. 6 ).

Figures

Figure 2. Male hind tibia, dorsal view A D. ponti B D. aterrima C D. groenlandica D D. setibasis E D. similis F D. vockerothi G D. quadrisetosa H D. glacialis I D. hucketti J D. woodorum. Scale bars: 0.5 mm.

Figure 6. Male mid femur, anterior view (except G, H, L) A D. cantabrigensis B D. setibasis C D. vockerothi D D. profrontalis E D. glacialis F D. quadrisetosa G D. santamonicae, antero-dorsal view H D. amnicola, postero-dorsal view I D. similis J D. amnicola K D. hucketti L D. aldrichi, ventral view. Scale bars: 0.25 mm.