Home > Phylum selection > Arthropoda > Diptera > Psilidae
Home How to cite this site Terms & conditions Disclaimer Contact Site tutorial / Help Links	Chamaepsila gracilis Subspecies Original description Synonyms Psila gracilis Meigen, 1826 (nec Loew, 1854) Chamaepsila gracilis (Meigen, 1826) Psila atrimana Meigen, 1826 Chamaepsila atrimana (Meigen, 1826) Scatophaga buccata Fallén, 1826 (p. 15) Chamaepsila buccata (Fallén, 1826) Psila buccata (Fallén, 1826) Scatophaga fuscinervis Zetterstedt, 1835 Chamaepsila fuscinervis (Zetterstedt, 1835) Psilomyia intermedia Macquart, 1835 Chamaepsila intermedia (Macquart, 1835) Note: Many authors regard Chamaepsila buccata as the valid name, because they suspect that it has priority over Chamaepsila gracilis. However, in my opinion this is an error based on a erroneous citation of the original description. The name Scatophaga buccata has been published in a supplement to Fallén´s "Diptera Sveciae" (Fallén 1826). This supplement has been published in 1826 and thus in the same year as Meigen´s work (Meigen 1826). What appears to have been overlooked is the fact that, although it is consecutively paginated, the supplement has been published in two parts. Part one consists of pages 1-8 and part two consists of pages 9-16. The two parts have been published separately at different dates and they can be tentatively dated, because both parts contain official notices of recent public defenses of students of the faculty. Part one contains the notice of the defense of Nicholas George Herslow on June 10, 1826. Thus, the first part must have been published on or after that date. The second part, that also contains the description of Scatophaga buccata, contains the notice of the defense of Andreas Gustav Dahlbom on December 13, 1826. Thus, this part must have been published between December 13 and December 31, 1826. I presume that this unpaginated page that contains this notice and that belongs between the first and second part of the supplement has been omitted by many bookbinders, because as an unnumbered page it is "superfluous" between the consecutively paginated pages of the two parts. In this way, the two parts of the supplement become a single "volume" that only has the first notice dating from June 10, 1826. This has probably led many authors to believe that Fallén´s "buccata" has been published before Meigen´s "gracilis". By contrast, I argue that Fallén´s "buccata" has been published after December 13, 1826 and thus after Meigen´s "gracilis", and I therefore regard Chamaepsila gracilis as the valid name.   Identification Distribution Biology This page has been updated on March 11, 2012 This site is online since May 31, 2005 Copyright © by Nikola-Michael Prpic. All rights reserved.	Related information: Subspecies Original description Synonyms Identification Distribution Biology References