Home > Phylum selection > Arthropoda > Diptera > Scathophagidae
Home How to cite this site Terms & conditions Disclaimer Contact Site tutorial / Help Links	Nanna armillata Subspecies Original description Synonyms Cordylura armillata Zetterstedt, 1846 Nanna armillata (Zetterstedt, 1846) Amaurosoma armillata (Zetterstedt, 1846) Amaurosoma armillatum (Zetterstedt, 1846) Amaurosoma mensurata Becker, 1894 Amaurosoma mensuratum Becker, 1894 Nanna mensurata (Becker, 1894) Clidogaster obscura auct. nec Fallén, 1819 (misidentification) This genus has a long history of taxonomic confusion. The first concept of this genus was developed by Becker around 1890. At the time he was already working on his manuscript "Dipterologische Studien" which was then published in several parts some years later. Becker apparently has circulated drafts of his manuscript to other dipterologists. One of them, Strobl, even cites Becker´s unpublished work and uses many of the new genus names in the manuscript (among them the genus Nanna) in one of his own publications (Strobl 1894), perhaps in the belief that Becker´s work would be published anytime soon. Unfortunately, Becker´s work took longer to be published and Strobl´s paper was then published first. When Becker´s work finally appeared (Becker 1894) he had obviously changed his mind and had changed many draft genus names (e.g. he changed Nanna to Amaurosoma). Although Strobl did not intend to be the author of Becker´s manuscript names, according to the rules of zoological nomenclature he published the names first and his names therefore have priority over the revised names published a few months later by Becker. Note: The gender of Amaurosoma is discussed controversially. The original author described several new species in this genus, all of them with female endings. However, Article 30.1.2 of the Code requires all genus names formed from unchanged greek words to take the gender the word has in classical Greek grammar. "Soma" ("body") is of neutral gender. Note: Amaurosoma mensuratum is listed as a valid species by most authors. However, it has been synonymized with the present species by Sifner (2008), because he compared the types of both taxa and could not find significant differences. Note: Nanna armillata and Nanna fasciata are extremely similar and Stuke and Schacht (2009) draw attention to the fact that the available morphological characters are insufficient to separate the two species. If the two species are identical, then Nanna fasciata would be the valid name.   Identification Distribution Biology This page has been updated on November 29, 2015 This site is online since May 31, 2005 Copyright © by Nikola-Michael Prpic. All rights reserved.