Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:06:24.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE MAJOR SUBGROUPS OF BRACHYCERA (DIPTERA): A CRITICAL REVIEW

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Graham C.D. Griffiths
Graham C.D. Griffiths
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Six major subgroups of the Brachycera are recognized under the names Stratiomyomorpha, Vermileonomorpha new infraorder, Tabanomorpha, Nemestrinoidea, Pleroneura, and Eremoneura. Recent suggestions regarding the possible sister-group of the Brachycera are reviewed, and all found to be inadequately supported. Characters used to support possible relationships between the major subgroups (i.e. possible synapomorphies) are reviewed with respect to morphological interpretation and polarity. On the basis of this analysis, five partly conflicting possible groupings are discussed: (1) all other Brachycera as the sister-group of the Stratiomyomorpha; (2) Muscomorpha sensu Woodley (Nemestrinoidea + Heterodactyla); (3) inclusion of Nemestrinoidea in Tabanomorpha; (4) Heterodactyla sensu Lameere (Pleroneura + Eremoneura); and (5) an asilotabaniform group (Vermileonomorpha + Tabanomorpha + Nemestrinoidea + Pleroneura). Resolution of conflicts among these possible groupings will require critical morphological studies of the phallic complex and embryological studies of groups of Brachycera other than Cyclorrhapha. Because of present uncertainties, it is recommended that authors consider alternatives rather than rely on a single preferred concept of phytogeny at this time. Autapomorphies of the major subgroups are discussed in an appendix.

Résumé

Six principaux sous-groupes de Brachycères sont actuellement reconnus sous les noms de Stratiomyomorpha, Vermileonomorpha nouvel infraordre, Tabanomorpha, Nemestrinoidea, Pleroneura et Eremoneura. Les théories avancées récemment au sujet du groupe soeur des Brachycères ont été examinées et elles ne sont pas suffisamment appuyées par des preuves certaines. Les caractères utilisés pour établir des relations hypothétiques entre les principaux sous-groupes (i.e. des synapomorphies) sont réexaminées sous les aspects de leur polarité et de l’interprétation morphologique qu’on peut en faire. D’après les résultats de l’analyse, cinq tentatives regroupements partiellement incompatibles sont examinées : (1) tous les autres Brachycères comme groupe soeur des Stratiomyomorpha, (2) les Muscomorpha sensu Woodley (Nemestrinoidea + Heterodactyla), (3) l’insertion des Nemestrinoidea dans les Tabanomorpha, (4) les Heterodactyla sensu Lameere (Pleroneura + Eremoneura), et (5) un groupe asilotabaniforme (Vermileonomorpha + Tabanomorpha + Nemestrinoidea + Pleroneura). Seules des études morphologiques critiques du complexe phallique et des études embryologiques de groupes de Brachycères autres que des Cyclorrhaphes pourront permettre de faire de la lumière sur le problème des incompatibilités entre les regroupements possibles. Pour le moment, à cause des incertitudes qui prévalent toujours, il est préférable d’envisager des solutions alternatives plutôt que de retenir un seul concept de phylogénie. Les autapomorphies des principaux sous-groupes sont examinées en appendice.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 126 , Issue 3 , June 1994 , pp. 861 - 880
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bonhag, P.F. 1951. The skeleto-muscular mechanism of the head and abdomen of the adult horsefly (Diptera: Tabanidae). Transactions of the American Entomological Society 77: 131–202.Google Scholar
Brauer, F. 1863. Monographie der Oestriden. Carl Ueberreuter, Vienna. 292 pp., 10 plates.Google Scholar
Brauer, F. 1883. Die Zweiflügler des kaiserlichen Museums zu Wien. III. Systematische Studien auf Grundlage der Dipteren-Larven nebst einer Zusammenstellung von Beispielen aus der Literatur über dieselben und Beschreibung neuer Formen. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe. Wien 47: 1–100.Google Scholar
Chvála, M. 1983. The Empidoidea (Diptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. II. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica 12: 281 pp.Google Scholar
Colless, D.H., and McAlpine, D.K.. 1970. Diptera. pp. 656–740 in Waterhouse, D.F. (Ed.), The Insects of Australia. Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria. xiii + 1029 pp.Google Scholar
Cumming, J.M., and Cooper, B.E.. 1992. A revision of the Nearctic species of the tachydromiine fly genus Stilpon Loew (Diptera: Empidoidea). The Canadian Entomologist 124: 951–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, J.M., and Sinclair, B.J.. 1990. Fusion and confusion: Interpretation of male genitalic homologies in the Empidoidea (Diptera). Second International Congress of Dipterology, Bratislava, August 27 – September 1, 1990. Abstract Volume, Third Supplement. Comenius University, Bratislava, p. 334.Google Scholar
Griffiths, G.C.D. 1990. Review of: McAlpine, J.F. and Wood, D.M. (Eds.). Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 3. Quaestiones Entomologicae 26: 117–130.Google Scholar
Griffiths, G.C.D. 1991. Hypopygial musculature and its implications for homologies between Eremoneura and other Brachycera. Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Dipterology, Bratislava, August 27 – September 1, 1990. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague. pp. 71–83.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1948. Die Larvenformen der Dipteren. I. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. 185 pp.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1954. Flügelgeäder und System der Dipteren unter Berücksichtigung der aus dem Mesozoikum bechriebenen Fossilien. Beiträge zur Entomologie 4: 245–388.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1967. Die sogenannten “niederen Brachycera” im Baltischen Bernstein (Diptera: Fam. Xylophagidae, Xylomyidae, Rhagionidae, Tabanidae). Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde 174: 51 pp.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1968. Kritische Bemerkungen über den Bau der Flügelwurzel bei den Dipteren und die Frage nach der Monophylie der Nematocera. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde 193: 23 pp.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1976 a. 1963a. Anthomyiidae. Erster Teil. Die Fliegen der Paläarktischen Region 7 (1). E. Schweizerbart' sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart. 78 pp.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1976 b. Das Hypopygium von Lonchoptera lutea Panzer und die phylogenetischen Verwandtschaftsbezie-hungen der Cyclorrhapha (Diptera). Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde, Series A (Biologie) 283: 63 pp.Google Scholar
Irwin, M.E. 1976. Morphology of the terminalia and known ovipositing behaviour of female Therevidae (Diptera: Asiloidea), with an account of correlated adaptations and comments on phylogenetic relationships. Annals of the Natal Museum 22: 913–935.Google Scholar
Jürgens, G., Lehman, R., Schardin, M., and Nüsslein-Volhard, C.. 1986. Segmental organization of the head in the embryo of Drosophila melanogaster. Roux's Archives of Developmental Biology 195: 359–377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kovalev, V.G. 1987. Classification of the Diptera in the light of paleontological data. pp. 40–48 in Narchuk, E.P. (Ed.), Two-winged Insects: Systematics, Morphology and Ecology. Zoological Institute of USSR Academy of Sciences, Leningrad. 156 pp.Google Scholar
Krivosheina, N.P. 1971. The Glutopidae and their position within the Diptera (Brachycera Orthorrhapha). Entomologicheskoye Obozreniye 50: 681–694.Google Scholar
Krzeminski, W. 1992. Triassic and Lower Jurassic stage of Diptera evolution. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft 65: 39–59.Google Scholar
Lameere, A. 1906. Notes pour la classification des Diptères. Mémoires de la Société Entomologique de Belgique 12: 105–140.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1845. Dipterologische Beiträge. [I]. Königliches Friedrich-Wilhelms-Gymnasium zu Posen, zu der Öffentlichen Prüfung der Schüler 1845: 1–52, 1 plate.Google Scholar
Mackerras, I.M. 1925. The Nemestrinidae (Diptera) of the Australasian Region. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 50: 489–561, plate L.Google Scholar
Matile, L. 1990. Recherches sur la Systématique et l'Évolution des Keroplatidae (Diptera, Mycetophiloidea). Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Série A. Zoologie 148: 682 pp.Google Scholar
McAlpine, J.F., Peterson, B.V., Shewell, G.E., Teskey, H.J., Vockeroth, J.R., and Wood, D.M. (Eds.). 1981. Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 1. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Monograph 27: vi + 674 pp.Google Scholar
Nagatomi, A. 1977. Classification of lower Brachycera (Diptera). Journal of Natural History 11: 321–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagatomi, A. 1981. Some characters of the lower Brachycera (Diptera) and their plesiomorphy and apomorphy. Kontyû 49: 397–407.Google Scholar
Nagatomi, A. 1984. Male genitalia of the lower Brachycera (Diptera). Beiträge zur Entomologie 34: 99–157.Google Scholar
Nagatomi, A. 1992. Notes on the phylogeny of various taxa of the orthorrhaphous Brachycera (Insecta: Diptera). Zoological Science 9: 843–857.Google Scholar
Nagatomi, A., and Iwata, K.. 1976. Female terminalia of lower Brachycera — I (Diptera). Beiträge zur Entomologie 26: 5–47.Google Scholar
Nagatomi, A., and Iwata, K. 1978. Female terminalia of lower Brachycera — II (Diptera). Beiträge zur Entomologie 28: 263–293.Google Scholar
Nagatomi, A., Saigusa, T., Nagatomi, H., and Lyneborg, L.. 1991. The systematic position of the Apsilocephalidae, Rhagionempididae, Protempididae, Hilarimorphidae, Vermileonidae and some genera of Bombyliidae (Insecta, Diptera). Zoological Science 8: 593–607.Google Scholar
Ovchinnikova, O.G. 1989. Musculature of the Male Genitalia in Brachycera-Orthorrapha (Diptera). Trudy Zoologicheskovo Instituta Akademii Nauk SSSR 190: 168 pp.Google Scholar
Reichardt, H. 1929. Untersuchungen über den Genitalapparat der Asiliden. Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Zoologie 135: 257–301.Google Scholar
Röder, G. 1984. Morphologische Untersuchungen an Praetarsen von Diptera und Mecoptera (Insecta). Dissertation of Natural Science Faculty of Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg. 393 pp.Google Scholar
Schiner, J.R. 1864. Ein neues System der Dipteren. Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 14: 201–212.Google Scholar
Sinclair, B.J. 1992. A phylogenetic interpretation of the Brachycera (Diptera) based on the larval mandible and associated mouthpart structures. Systematic Entomology 17: 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, R.E. 1957. A Revised Interpretation of the External Reproductive Organs of Male Insects. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 135(6): 60 pp.Google Scholar
Stubbs, A. 1992. The First International Symposium on Tipulomorpha Systematics and Phylogeny. Kraków, Poland, 9–13. September, 1991. [Summary]. Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia 35: 5–6.Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, B.R. 1960. Chapter XII. Diptera (Brachycera): Rhagionidae. South African Animal Life 7: 216–308.Google Scholar
Stuckenberg, B.R. 1973. The Athericidae, a new family in the lower Brachycera (Diptera). Annals of the Natal Museum 21: 649–673.Google Scholar
Teskey, H.J. 1981. Vermileonidae. pp. 529–532 in Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 1. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Monograph 27: vi + 674 pp.Google Scholar
Theodor, O. 1976. On the Structure of the Spermathecae and Aedeagus in the Asilidae and their Importance in the Systematics of the Family. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem. 175 pp.Google Scholar
Theodor, O. 1983. The Genitalia of Bombyliidae (Diptera). Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem. vi + 275 pp.Google Scholar
Tuxen, S.L. (Ed.). 1970. Taxonomist's Glossary of Genitalia in Insects (2nd edition). Munksgaard, Copenhagen. 359 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, H. 1972. Zur Anatomie des Empididen-Hypopygiums (Diptera). Veröffentlichungen der Zoologischen Staatsammlung München 16: 1–27.Google Scholar
Ulrich, H. 1991. Two new genera of parathalassiine-like flies from South Africa (Diptera, Empidoidea). Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 42: 187–216.Google Scholar
Wiegmann, B.M., Mitter, C., and Thompson, F.C.. 1993. Evolutionary origin of the Cyclorrhapha (Diptera): Tests of alternative morphological hypotheses. Cladistics 9: 41–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D.M. 1990. Ground plan of the male genitalia of Brachycera (Diptera). Second International Congress of Dipterology, Bratislava, August 27 – September 1, 1990. Abstract Volume, Third Supplement. Comenius University, Bratislava. p. 363.Google Scholar
Wood, D.M. 1991. Homology and phylogenetic implications of male genitalia in Diptera. The ground plan. Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Dipterology, Bratislava, August 27 – September 1, 1990. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague. pp. 255–284.Google Scholar
Wood, D.M., and Borkent, A.. 1989. Phylogeny and classification of the Nematocera. pp. 1333–1370 in Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 3. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Monograph 32: vi + pp. 1333–1581.Google Scholar
Woodley, N.E. 1989. Phylogeny and classification of the “orthorrhaphous” Brachycera. pp. 1371–1395 in Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 3. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Monograph 32: vi + pp. 1333–1581.Google Scholar
Yeates, D.K., and Irwin, M.E.. 1992. Three New Species of Heterotropus Loew (Diptera: Bombyliidae) from South Africa with Descriptions of the Immature Stages and a Discussion of the Phylogenetic Placement of the Genus. American Museum Novitates 3036: 25 pp.Google Scholar
Zaitsev, V.F. 1992. Evolutionary Pathways of Morphological Adaptations (with Reference to the Superfamily Bombylioidea, Order Diptera). Trudy Zoologicheskovo Instituta Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk 185: 240 pp.Google Scholar