Iteaphila Zetterstedt
Sinclair, Bradley J. & Shamshev, Igor V., 2012, 3561, Zootaxa 3561, pp. 1-61 : 7
publication ID |
048F0E79-3343-4348-895E-3B06472FC264 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:048F0E79-3343-4348-895E-3B06472FC264 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/DA74879E-8E10-D74A-FF0D-3EF191A18BAB |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Iteaphila Zetterstedt |
status |
|
Genus Iteaphila Zetterstedt View in CoL View at ENA
( Figs. 1–3)
Iteophila Zetterstedt, 1837: 31 , nomen nudum.
Iteaphila Zetterstedt, 1838: 540 View in CoL . Type species: Iteaphila macquarti Zetterstedt, 1838 View in CoL , des. Coquillett, 1903: 251.
Steleocheta Becker, 1887: 129 . Type species: Steleocheta setacea Becker, 1887 View in CoL (by monotypy) (= Iteaphila macquarti Zetterstedt, 1838 View in CoL ).
Stelochaeta or Steleochaeta, errors: Chvála & Wagner, 1989: 230.
Diagnosis. This genus typically has long antennae, conspicuously lengthened proboscis and palpi (which are usually directed forward and subequal in length), palpi run parallel to proboscis ( Fig. 2C), slender legs, humped thorax clothed in numerous unmodified hair-like setae, R 4+5 branched, and discal cell usually truncate apically ( Fig. 2A) (except I. setosa group).
Remarks. Iteaphila and Anthepiscopus are readily recognized from other Empidoidea by the characters listed in the above Diagnosis, except R 4+5 is unbranched in the latter genus. The presence or absence of the radial fork is the only feature that distinguishes these two genera. If the wing tip is damaged, determining the identity of the genus is not possible if the abdomen is missing or is a female specimen (other than species of the I. setosa group). Not surprisingly, the occasional specimen of Iteaphila has been found lacking the radial fork (identification based on male terminalia), but this is likely an abberration. The presence or absence of the radial fork in defining genera has been found problematic in recognizing monophyletic groups within Empis L. and Rhamphomyia Meigen (e.g., see discussion in Chvála 1994). As stated in the introduction, the I. macquarti group is likely paraphyletic in relation to Anthepiscopus , but we consider it more important at this time to establish the identity of all species of Iteaphila before attempting to resolve this problem. A significant step forward is the establishment of monophyletic groups within the I. macquarti group which are listed at the end of this paper, defined primarily on the basis of apomorphies of the male terminalia.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
Iteaphila Zetterstedt
Sinclair, Bradley J. & Shamshev, Igor V. 2012 |
Stelochaeta
Chvala, M. & Wagner, R. 1989: 230 |
Steleocheta
Becker, Th. 1887: 129 |
Iteaphila
Coquillett, D. W. 1903: 251 |
Zetterstedt, J. W. 1838: 540 |
Iteophila
Zetterstedt, J. W. 1837: 31 |