Open Chris-Angell opened 6 years ago
mdoering
commented
6 years ago Thanks a lot for the details, Chris, that is VERY useful. We do not manually curate the taxonomy, so classic papers are hard to incorporate. I will try my best to clean up this family through better code, selected sources and small manual patches
Chris-Angell
commented
6 years ago Thanks, good luck!
Chris-Angell
commented
5 years ago Hi, happy new year!
I just checked on this and I am happy to see that a bunch of synonymous species pages have been linked up! Nicely done! (The misspelled or misattributed "taxa" still remain, but I suppose they're hard to deal with non-manually)
But I noticed that the genus Piophila, which now contains about half of the piophilid species, has been moved inexplicably to Lauxaniidae. I just thought I'd let know know in case you weren't aware.
Best of luck and happy holidays!
Chris
mdoering
commented
5 years ago CoL has Piophila in the right place and various Diptera improvements. Let's see how it looks with the latest source before applying further patches
https://www.gbif.org/species/9503
It appears the taxonomy of this family has been merged automatically from multiple sources using three different taxonomic schemes: the old "lumped" style placing many species in the genus Piophila with many subgenera; the scheme proposed by McAlpine (1977) with many genera, including the large genus Parapiophila McAlpine, with Piophila itself containing only one or two species (mostly in use in North America); and the revision to McAlpine's scheme by Ozerov (2004), synonymizing several genera, notably Parapiophila with Allopiophila (mostly in use in Europe).
Because of this, some species have been included two or even three times under different genera (e.g. Allopiophila atrifrons = Parapiophila atrifrons = Piophila atrifrons). I don't really have a horse in this race, as far as which scheme you choose, but you cannot have all three. Both McAlpine's and Ozerov's schemes are used fairly widely.
There are also a few other housekeeping issues with this family. Numerous genera appear twice, with and without the taxonomic authority. There are a bunch of misspellings here in addition to the correct versions: "Mycetalus" for Mycetaulus, "Amphipopon" for Amphipogon, Liopiophila "varipesa" in addition to L. varipes, and "Protopidiophila" neotropica instead of Protopiophila (although I don't believe this is a real species under any genus).
Finally, there are a number of published synonymizations that should probably be taken into account. Mei et al. (2013) synonymized Protothyreophora Ozerov with Centrophlebomyia Hendel. Martin-Vega (2014) synonymized Prochyliza nigricornis with Prochyliza nigrimana. Finally, Rochefort and Wheeler (2015) synonymized Allopiophila calceata with Parapiophila atrifrons.
Addressing these issues will make this taxonomy more accurate and useful. Thank you!
Chris
Martín-Vega, D. (2014) On the identity of Prochyliza nigrimana (Meigen) and Prochyliza nigricornis (Meigen) (Diptera: Piophilidae), with a synopsis of Prochyliza Walker and description of a new species. Zootaxa, 3893: 277-292.
McAlpine, J.F. 1977. A revised classification of the Piophilidae, including ‘Neottiophilidae’ and ‘Thyreophoridae’ (Diptera: Schizophora). The Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 103: 1-66.
Mei, M., Whitmore, D., Giudice G.L. & Cerretti, P. (2013) A neotype designation for the bone-skipper Centrophlebomyia anthropophaga (Diptera, Piophilidae, Thyreophorina), with a review of the Palaearctic species of Centrophlebomyia. Zookeys 310: 7–28.
Ozerov, A.L. 2004. On the classification of the family Piophilidae (Diptera). Entomological Review 84: 600 - 608.
Rochefort, S. & Wheeler, T.A. (2015) Diversity of Piophilidae (Diptera) in northern Canada and description of a new Holarctic species of Parapiophila McAlpine. Zootaxa 3925: 229–240.