|
Chrysopilus luteolus
|
|
Subspecies
The taxonomic
history of this species is extremely
complicated (see below). The species
boundaries and intraspecific substructure are
therefore unclear. However, based
on the data discussed below, I do not
currently recognize any subspecies of this
species.
Original description
Synonyms
Rhagio bicolor
Fabricius, 1794 (nomen dubium and tentative
synonym)
Chrysopilus bicolor (Fabricius, 1794)
Leptis bicolor (Fabricius, 1794)
Atherix oculata Fabricius, 1805 (nomen
dubium and tentative synonym)
Leptis oculata (Fabricius, 1805)
Chrysopilus oculata (Fabricius, 1805)
Chrysopilus
oculatus (Fabricius, 1805)
Leptis luteola
Fallén, 1814 (p. 14)
Chrysopilus luteolus (Fallén, 1814)
Leptis auricollis Wiedemann (in Meigen),
1820
Chrysopilus auricollis (Wiedemann (in
Meigen), 1820)
Chrysopila laeta Zetterstedt, 1842 (p. 224)
(unclear synonym)
Chrysopilus laetus (Zetterstedt, 1842)
Chrysopila
nigricauda Beling, 1873 (nomen dubium and
tentative synonym)
Chrysopilus
nigricauda (Beling, 1873)
Atherix nigrita
auct. nec Fabricius, 1794 (a
misidentification)
In the 18th and 19th century a number of
species have been described in the genus that
we now name Chrysopilus with often very brief
descriptions and based on only small
differences in body coloration. In addition,
the descriptions of the same species in
different works are often contradictory. This
has lead to significant confusion about the
exact number of species and how they can be
identified. In conclusion, the taxonomy and
nomenclature of the genus Chrysopilus is badly
in need of a thorough revision. Krivosheina
has published a series of papers that can be
regarded as a first step towards a revision of
this genus (see References).
The type of Rhagio bicolor is lost. However,
Krivosheina (2006) studied several specimens
that were previously identified as
"bicolor", but the male genitalia were all
identical to the genitalia of "luteolus"
specimens studied by Krivosheina (2008).
Thus, the original Rhagio bicolor is a nomen
dubium, but the concept of "bicolor" used by
several authors is obviously identical with
"luteolus". I therefore list Rhagio bicolor
here as a synonym, but not as the valid
name, because it is a nomen dubium.
Atherix oculata
has been insufficiently described and cannot
be assigned to a species. However, most
authors have regarded it as a synonym of the
present species. Meigen (1830) removed it
from the synonymy, and regarded it as a
separate species, but it is not clear what
the differences between the two taxa are. I
regard the nominal Atherix oculata as a
nomen dubium and a likely synonym.
The similarity of Leptis auricollis to
"bicolor" has already been noted in the
original description. Krivosheina (2008) has
studied the type of Leptis auricollis and
several other specimens assigned to
"auricollis" and found no significant
genital differences to specimens assigned to
"luteolus". Therefore, I list the name here
as a synonym.
Chrysopilus laetus is regarded as a separate
species by most authors. However, it cannot
be separated confidently from Chrysopilus
luteolus with the available diagnostic
features. The type has not yet been reviewed
and the characters given in the literature
to distinguish the two taxa have never been
investigated in more detail to assess their
validity; they may all fall within the
limits of intraspecific variation.
Therefore, I list Chrysopilus laetus here as
an unclear synonym until more data on its
status become available.
Finally, there
is the name Chrysopila nigricauda described
by Beling in 1873, which has after this time
not been used in many publications and is
regarded a nomen dubium by most authors.
From its description I conclude that this
name also refers to the present species and
I include it in its synonymy.
Identification
Distribution
Biology
This page has been updated on August 20, 2011
This site is online since May 31, 2005
Copyright © by Nikola-Michael Prpic. All
rights reserved.
|
|
|
