Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T10:27:28.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE SYSTEMATICS, PHYLOGENY, AND ZOOGEOGRAPHY OF SYMMERUS WALKER AND AUSTRALOSYMMERUS FREEMAN (DIPTERA: MYCETOPHILIDAE: DITOMYIINAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Donald Douglas Munroe
Donald Douglas Munroe*
Affiliation:
Biosystematics Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa
Get access

Abstract

The holarctic genus Symmerus and the transantarctic genus Australosymmerus are revised, a reconstruction of their phylogeny is presented, and their zoogeography is discussed. Diagnoses or redescriptions of 31 of the 37 previously-known species and descriptions of 14 new species are presented. The new species are S. nepalensis from Nepal; S. uncatus and S. vockerothi from eastern North America; A. acutus, A. magnificus, and A. truncatus from Mexico; and A. collessi, A. confusus, A. lobatus, A. maculatus, A. magellani, A. minutus, A. montorum, and A. peruensis from South America. Symmerus tristis (Loew) and S. dilutus Fisher are considered synonyms of S. lautus (Loew), and a lectotype is designated for Plesiastina bifasciata Williston. A subgeneric classification is proposed, in which two subgenera of Symmerus and eight subgenera of Australosymmerus are described. Crionisca Colless is considered to be a subgenus of Australosymmerus. The subgenera of Symmerus are Symmerus s. str. and the new subgenus Psilosymmerus (type-species: Symmerus coqulus Garrett). The subgenera of Australosymmerus are Australosymmerus s. str., Crionisca, and the new subgenera Ventrilobus (type-species: Centrocnemis fuscinervis Edwards), Araeostylus (type-species: Australomyia bivittata Freeman), Vellicocauda (type-species: Platyura insolita Walker), Tantrus (type-species: Australosymmerus montorum Munroe), Melosymmerus (type-species: Centrocnemis bisetosa Edwards), and Calosymmerus (type-species: Plesiastina bifasciata Williston). New combinations include A. aculeatus (Edwards), A. bisetosus (Edwards), A. mexicanus (Giglio-Tos), A. nitidus (Tonnoir), A. pediferus (Edwards), A. rieki (Colless), A. simplex (Freeman), A. tillyardi (Tonnoir), A. trivittatus (Edwards), and A. zonatus (Giglio-Tos). In addition to the six previously-described species which were not included in the study, five species remain unplaced in the subgeneric classification. Significant biological data are presented for S. coqulus Garrett, and some observations on the biology of S. vockerothi Munroe are also presented.The phylogeny of Symmerus and Australosymmerus was reconstructed by Hennig's system of "phylogenetic systematics" because there is no clearly-formulated alternative to the cladistic method for phylogenetic analysis. A number of logical and practical difficulties with the procedure are discussed. It was concluded that criteria of deviation from a basic plan and inferred adaptive significance were preferable to criteria of distribution of character states for the recognition and categorization of attributes as plesiomorphic or apomorphic, that the use of minute correspondence in structurally rich characters for the recognition of convergence and synapomorphy is not a reason for discarding phylogenetic methods for phenetic ones, as has been suggested, and that the necessity for tentative reference to a pre-existing phylogeny is neither a philosophical nor a practical problem.For each attribute used in the cladistic analysis, the inferred plesiomorphic and apomorphic state is described and the reason for the inference is stated. The monophyletic group described by each synapomorphy is identified; description of the monophyletic groups at each level specify the phylogenetic reconstruction, which is summarized by means of cladograms.Cladistic and zoogeographic evidence is presented which indicates that transantarctic relationships in Australosymmerus are found in a complex of closely-related sister-groups forming a monophyletic group confined to the South Temperate region. Two of the three transantarctic relationships occur at the intra-subgeneric level; the remaining one occurs at the inter-subgeneric level. The remaining species of Australosymmerus are shown to form a monophyletic morphological-chorological progression from south to north across the equator in the New World. The evidence indicates that the ancestor of Symmerus and Australosymmerus lived in the northern hemisphere. One phyletic line dispersed to the southern hemisphere and reached what is now South America at least by the early Tertiary, but probably much earlier, and gave rise to Australosymmerus. If Australosymmerus did not cross large water gaps, it must have been present in Gondwanaland before the break-off of New Zealand (Lower Cretaceous). Australosymmerus is not present in South Africa, indicating that it did not exist in Gondwanaland before the break-off of South Africa, or that it was present and has subsequently become extinct in South Africa. The sister-group of the transantarctic group migrated northwards, probably reaching northern South America before the end of the Oligocene.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada , Volume 106 , Supplement S92 , 1974 , pp. 9 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1974

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.)

Footnotes

1

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley.

References

REFERENCES

Aldrich, J. M. 1905. A catalogue of North American Diptera. Smithson. misc. Collns 46:(1444): 1–680.Google Scholar
Ander, K. 1942. Die Insektenfauna des baltischens Bernsteins nebst damit verknüpften zoogeographischen Problemen. Acta Univ. lund; N.F.(2), 38(4): 1–38.Google Scholar
Arribalzaga, F. L. 1892. Dipterologia Argentina (Mycetophilidae). Boln Acad. nac. Cienc. Cordoba. 12: 377–436.Google Scholar
Axelrod, D. I. 1960. The evolution of flowering plants, pp. 227–305. In Tax, S. (Ed.), Evolution after Darwin, Vol. 1. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Bigot, J. M. F. 1888. Mission scientifique du Cap Horn, 1882–1883. 6 (pt. 2, v): 1–45.Google Scholar
Bosc, L. A. G. 1792. Actes Soc. d'Hist. nat. Paris 1: 42–43.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. C. 1897. Notes on Diptera taken in 1896. Entomologist's mon. Mag. (Ser. 2), 33: 90.Google Scholar
Brauer, F. M. 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. Denkschr. Akad. Wiss., Wien (Math.-nat. Kl.) 47: 1–100.Google Scholar
Brundin, L. 1965. On the real nature of transantarctic relationships. Evolution 19: 496–505.Google Scholar
Brundin, L. 1965. Transantarctic relationships and their significance, as evidenced by chironomid midges. With a monograph of the subfamilies Podonominae and Aphroteniinae and the austral Heptagyiae. Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Camin, J. H. and Sokal, R. R.. 1965. A method for deducing branching sequences in phylo-geny. Evolution 19: 311–326.Google Scholar
Cole, F. R. 1969. The flies of western North America. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Cole, F. R. and Lovett, A. L.. 1921. An annotated list of the Diptera (flies) of Oregon. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (ser. 4), 11: 197–344.Google Scholar
Colless, D. H. 1967 a. An examination of certain concepts in phenetic taxonomy. Syst. Zool. 16: 6–27.Google Scholar
Colless, D. H. 1967 b. The phylogenetic fallacy. Syst. Zool. 16: 289–295.Google Scholar
Colless, D. H. 1969 a. The phylogenetic fallacy revisited. Syst. Zool. 18: 115–126.Google Scholar
Colless, D. H. 1969 b. The interpretation of Hennig's Phylogenetic Systematics — a reply to Dr. Schlee. Syst. Zool. 18: 134–144.Google Scholar
Colless, D. H. 1970. The Mycetophilidae (Diptera) of Australia. I. Introduction, key to subfamilies, review of Ditomyiinae. J. Aust. ent. Soc. 9: 83–99.Google Scholar
Colless, D. H. and McAlpine, D. K.. 1970. Diptera, pp. 656–740. In C.S.I.R.O., (Ed.), The insects of Australia. Melbourne Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Cranwell, L. M. 1963. Nothofagus: living and fossil, pp. 387–400. In Gressitt, J. L. (Ed.), Pacific Basin biogeography, a symposium. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Darlington, P. J. 1957. Zoogeography: The geographical distribution of animals. Wiley, New York. 675 pp.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. F. 1972. Plate tectonics. Scient. Am. 226(5): 56–68.Google Scholar
Dietz, R. F. 1972. Geosynclines, mountains and continent-building. Scient. Am. 226(3): 30–38.Google Scholar
Edmunds, G. F. 1972. Biogeography and evolution of Ephemeroptera. A. Rev. Ent. 17: 21–42.Google Scholar
Edwards, F. W. 1913. Notes on British Mycetophilidae. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 61: 334–382.Google Scholar
Edwards, F. W. 1916. On the systematic position of the genus Mycetobia Mg. (Diptera nematocera). Ann. Mag nat. Hist. (8) 17: 108–115.Google Scholar
Edwards, F. W. 1921 a. Resting positions of some nematocerous Diptera. Entomologist's mon. Mag. 57: 22–26.Google Scholar
Edwards, F. W. 1921 b. A note on the dipterous subfamily Ditomyinae, with descriptions of new recent and fossil forms. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist (9) 7: 431–437.Google Scholar
Edwards, F. W. 1925. British fungus-gnats (Diptera, Mycetophilidae) with a revised genelic classification of the family. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 72: 505–662.Google Scholar
Edwards, F. W. 1926. The phylogeny of nematocerous Diptera. A critical review of some recent suggestions. Proc. 3rd. int. Congr. Ent. Vol. 2, pp. 111–129.Google Scholar
Edwards, F. W. 1940. New Neotropical Mycetophilidae (IV) (Diptera). Revta Ent., Rio de J. 11: 410–465.Google Scholar
Estabrook, G. F. 1968. A general solution in partial ordels for the Camin-Sokal model in phylogeny. J. theor. Biol. 421–438.Google Scholar
Farris, J. S., Kluge, A. G., and Eckardt, M. J.. 1970. A numerical approach to phylogenetic systematics, Syst. Zool. 19: 172–191.Google Scholar
Fisher, E. G. 1938. North American fungus-gnats. II. (Diptera: Mycetophilidae). Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 64: 195–200.Google Scholar
Fisher, E. G. 1941. Distributional notes and keys to American Ditomyiinae, Diadocidiinae and Ceroplatinae with descriptions of new species (Diptera: Mycetophilidae). Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 67: 275–301.Google Scholar
Freeman, P. 1951. Diptera of Patagonia and Sonth Chile based mainly on material in the British Museum (Natural History). III Mycetophilidae. British Museum, London.Google Scholar
Freeman, P. 1954. Los insectos de las Islas Juan Fernandez. 13. Mycetophilidae, Sciaridae, Cecidomyiidae and Scatopsidae (Diptera). Revta chil. Ent. 3: 23–40.Google Scholar
Garrett, C. B. D. 1925. Sirty-one new Diptera. Cranbrook, B.C.Google Scholar
Giglio-Tos, E. 1890. Nuove species di Ditteri del Museo Zoologico di Torino. Boll. Musei Zool. Anat. comp. R. Univ. Torino 5(84).Google Scholar
Harrington, H. J. 1965. Geology and morphology of Antarctica, pp. 1–71. In van Mieghem, J. and Oye, P. V. (Eds.), Biogeography and ecology in Antarctica. W. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1948. Die Larvenformen der Dipteren; eine Übersicht über die bisher bekannten Jugenstadien der zweiflügeligen Insekten. Vol. 1 Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966 a. The Diptera fauna of Nelv Zealand as a problem in systematics and zoogeography (translated by Wygodzinsky, P.). Pacif. Insects Monographs 9. 81 pp.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966 b. Phylogenetic sytematics. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Illies, J: 1965. Phylogeny and zoogeography of the Plecoptera. A. Rev. Ent. 10: 117–140.Google Scholar
Inger, R. F. 1967. The development of a phylogeny of frogs. Evolution 21: 369–384.Google Scholar
Johannsen, O. A. 1909. Diptera, family Mycetophilidae. Gertera Insect. 93. 141 pp.Google Scholar
Johannsen, O. A. 1910. The fungus gnats of North America. I. Bull. Me agric. Exp. Stn (1909) 172: 209–276.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. W. 1925. Fauna of New Zealand. 15. List of the Diptera or two-winged flies. Occ. Pap. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 7. 326 pp.Google Scholar
Keilin, D. 1919. On the structure of the larvae and the systematic position of genera Mycetobia Mg., Ditomyia Winn., and Symmerus Walk. (Diptera Nematovera). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9) 3: 33–42.Google Scholar
Kertesz, K. 1902. Catologus Dipterorum hucusque descriptorum. Vol. I. 339 pp. Lipsiae, Budapestini.Google Scholar
Kertesz, K. 1903. Mycetophiliclae, pp. 21–27, In Becker, T. et al. , Katalog der paläarktischen Dipteren. Band I. BudaPest.Google Scholar
King, L. C. 1962. The morphology of the earth, a study and synthesis of world scenery. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh and London.Google Scholar
Kloet, G. S. and Hincks, W. D.. 1945. A check list of British insects. Stockport, England.Google Scholar
Kluge, A. G. and Farris, J. S.. 1969. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of Anurans. Syst. Zool. 18: 1–32.Google Scholar
Kowartz, F. 1868. Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 18 212–213.Google Scholar
Kröber, o. 1910. Fauna Hamburgensis. verzeichnis der in der umgebend von Hamburg gefundenen Dipteren. Verh. Ver. naturW. Unterh. Hamb. 14: 3–113.Google Scholar
Lackschewitz, P. 1937. Die Fungivoriden des Ostbaltischen Gebietes. Arb. NatForschVer. Riga 21: 1–47.Google Scholar
Laffoon, J. L. 1965. Mycetophilidae, pp. 196–299. In Stone, A. et al. (Eds.). A catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico. Agric. Handb., Agric. Res. Serv. U.S., 276.Google Scholar
Landrock, K. 1918. Tabellen zum Bestimmen europäischer Pilzmücken. I Teil. Wien. ent. Ztg 37: 55–72.Google Scholar
Landrock, K. 1927 8. Fungivoridae. Fliegen palaearkt. Reg. 14–15. 196 pp.Google Scholar
Landrock, K. 1940. Zweiflügier oder Diptera. VI. Pilzmücken oder Fungivoridae (Mycetophilidae). Tierwelt Dtl. 38: 1–166.Google Scholar
Lane, J. 1947. New Brazilian Mycetophilidae (Diptera, Nemocera). Revta Ent., Rio de J. (1946) 17: 339–360.Google Scholar
Lane, J. 1948. “Mycetophilidae” do Brasil (Diptera, Nemocera). Revta bras. Biol. 8: 247–254.Google Scholar
Lane, J. 1956. Mycetophilidae, chiefly from Argentina. Proc. 10th int. congr. Ent., Vol. 1, pp. 143–162.Google Scholar
Lane, J. 1959. Insecta Amapaensia. Diptera: Mycetophilidae. studia ent. 2: 105–118.Google Scholar
Lane, J. 1963. Insecta Patagonica (Diptera: Mycetophilidae). Revta soc. ent. argent. (1962) 25: 3–16.Google Scholar
Leonard, M. D. 1928. A list of the insects of New York rvith a list of the spiders and certain other allied groups. Mem. Cornell (Univ. agric. Exp. Stn 101.Google Scholar
Liem, S. S. 1970. The morphology, systematics and evolution of the old world tree-frogs (Rhacophoriclae and Hyperoliidae). Fieldiana, Zool. 57: 1–145.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1869. Diptera americae septentrionalis indigena. centuria nona. Berl. ent. Z. 13: 129–186.Google Scholar
Lundström, C. 1909. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Dipteren Finlands. Acta Soc. Fauna Flora fenn. 32: 1–67.Google Scholar
Mackerras, I. M. 1950. The zoogeography of the Diptera. Aust. J. Sci. 12: 157–161.Google Scholar
Madwar, S. 1937. Biology and morphology of the immature stages of Mycetophilidae (Diptera, Nematocera). Phil. Trans. R. Soc. (B) 227: 1–110.Google Scholar
Malloch, J. R. 1917. A preliminary classification of Diptera, exclusive of Pupipara, based on larval and pupal characters with keys to imagines in certain families. Bull. Ill. St. Lab. nat. Hist. 12: 161–409.Google Scholar
Marshall, P. 1896. New Zealand Diptera: No. 2. Mycetophilidae. Tras. N.Z. Inst. 28: 250–309.Google Scholar
McAlpine, J. F. and Munroe, D. D.. 1968. Swarming of lonchaeid flies and other insects, with descriptions of four new species of Lonchaeidae (Diptera). Can. Ent. 100: 1154–1178.Google Scholar
Megien, J. W. 1818. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europtäischen zweiflügeligen Insekten. Vol. I tr. Aachen und Hamm.Google Scholar
Megien, J. W. 1930. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europäischen zweiflügeligen Insekten. Vol. VI. Aaachen und Hamm.Google Scholar
Mik, J. 1888. Dipterologische Miscellen. Wien. ett. Ztg 7: 140–741.Google Scholar
Mik, J. 1894. Dipterologische Miscellen. (2 ser.). Wien. ett. Ztg 13: 22–26.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1950. Catalogue of the Diptera of the New Zealand Sub-region. Bull. N.Z. Dep. scient. ind. Res. 100. 194 pp.Google Scholar
Nielsen, P. 1946. Danish fungus-gnats (Dipt., Fungiv.). Systematical and faunistical notes. I. Ditomyiinae, Bolitophilinae, Diadocidiinae, Macrocerinae. Ent. Meddr. (1943) 23: 120–1 31.Google Scholar
Okada, I. 1936. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Fungivoridenfauna lapans, III. Ditomyiinae (Dipt.). Insecta matsum. 11: 56–60.Google Scholar
Okada, I. 1939. Studien über die Pilzmücken (Fungivoridae) aus Hokkaido (Diptera, Nematocera). J. Fac. Agric. Hokkaido (imp.) Univ. 42: 267–336.Google Scholar
Osten-Sacken, C. R. 1862. Characters of the larvae of Mycetophilidae. Proc. ent. Soc. Philad. 1: 151–171.Google Scholar
Osten-Sacken, C. R. 1878. Catalogue of the described Diptera of North America. Ed. 2. Smithson. misc. Collns 16(270): 1–276.Google Scholar
Phillippi, R. A. 1865. Aufzählung der chilenischen Dipteren. Verh. zool-bot. Ges. Wien 15: 595–782.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1959. Logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
Sack, P. 1907. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Fauna der Umgegend von Frankfurt am Main. Die Dipteren. Ber. senckenb. naturf. Ges. 1907: 1–62.Google Scholar
Saigusa, T. 1966. A new Taiwan species of Symmerus with pectinate antennae (Diptera: Mycetophilidae). Pacif. Insects 8: 800–803.Google Scholar
sasakawa, M. 1963. Japanese Mycetophilidae (Diptera). IV. Ditomyiinae. Akitu 11: 15–18.Google Scholar
Schiner, I. R. 1864. Fauna Austriaca. Diptera. Vol. II. Vienna.Google Scholar
Schiner, I. R. 1868. Diptera, pp. 1–338. In Reise der osterreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde … Part 2. Zoologischer Theil Band 2. Abt. B. 1. Wien, K.-K. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei.Google Scholar
Schlee, D. 1969. Hennig's principle of phylogenetic systematics, an “intuitive, statisticophenetic taxonomy”? Syst. Zool. 18: 127–134.Google Scholar
Schmid, F. 1949. Une trichoptère sudaméricain des hautes altitudes. Acta zool. Iilloana 8: 591–601.Google Scholar
Séguy, E. 1940. Diptères Nématocères (Fungivoridae, Lycoriidae, Hesperinidae, Bibionidae, Scatopsidae, Phrynidae, Pachyneuridae, Blepharoceridae). Faune Fr. 36. 365 pp.Google Scholar
Shaw, F. R. 1941. Notes on the Mycetophilidae of the Great Smokies Mountains. Bull. Brooklyn ent. Soc. 35: 23–34.Google Scholar
Shaw, F. R. 1948. A contribution to the phylogeny of the Mycetophilidae. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 41: 189–199.Google Scholar
Shaw, F. R. and Shaw, M. M.. 1951. Relationships of certain genera of fungus gnats of the family Mycetophilidae. Smithson. misc. Collns 117 1–23.Google Scholar
Signoret, M. V. 1852. Notice sur un nouveau genre d'Hémiptères de Java. Annls Soc. ent. Fr. (2) 10: 545–548.Google Scholar
Skuse, F. A. A. 1888. Diptera of Australia. Part III. The Mycetophilidae. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 2) 3: 1122–1223.Google Scholar
Smith, J. B. 1890. Catalogue of the insects found in New Jersey. Rep. New Jers. geol. Surv. 2 (pt. 2, Zool.) 486 pp.Google Scholar
Smith, J. B. 1910. Catalogue of the insects of New Jersey. Rep. New Jers. St. Mus. 1909: 13–888.Google Scholar
Staeger, R. C. 1840. Systematisk Fortegnelse over de i Danmark hidtil fundne Diptera. Tipuliariae Fungicolae. Naturhistorisk tidsskrift (Kröyer, Henrik, Ed.) 3: 228–298.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H.. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Stephens, J. F. 1829. A systematic catalogue of British insects. Baldwin and Cradock, London.Google Scholar
Stephens, J. F. 1846. Illustrations of British Entomology. Supplement. H. G. Bohn, London.Google Scholar
Strobl, P. G. 1898. Die Dipteren von Steiermark. V Theil. Mitt. naturw. Ver. Steierm. 34: 192–298.Google Scholar
Stephens, J. F. 1910. Die Dipteren von Steiermark. V. Theil. Mitt. naturw. Ver. Steierm. (1909) 46: 45–293.Google Scholar
Tarwid, K. 1933. Sur l'existence de l'espèce symmerus apicalis winn. (Diptera, Fungivoridae). Annls Mus. zool. pol. 9: 375–379.Google Scholar
Theobald, F. V. 1892. An account of British flies (Diptera). vol. 1. E. stock, London.Google Scholar
Tillyard, R. J. 1924. Origin of the Australian and New Zealand insect faunas. Rep. Australas. Ass. Advmt Sci. 16: 407–413.Google Scholar
Tollet, R. 1943. Notes sur les dipères Mycetophilidae de Belgique. I. Ditomyiinae, Bolitophilinae. Bull. Mus. r. Hist. nat. Belg. 19: 1–20.Google Scholar
Tonnoir, A. L. 1929. Australian Mycetophilidae. Synopsis of the genera. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 54: 584–614.Google Scholar
Tonnoir, A. L. and Edwards, F. W.. 1927. New Zealand fungus gnats (Diptera: Mycetophilidae). Proc. N.Z. Inst. 57: 747–878.Google Scholar
Wagner, W. H. Jr., 1961. Problems in the classification of ferns, pp. 841–844. In Recent advances in botany. Univ. of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1837. Descriptions, etc., of the insects collected by Captain P. P. King, R.N., F.R.S., in the survey of the Straits of Magellan. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 17: 331–359.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1848. List of the specimens of dipterous insects in the collection of the British Museum. Vol. 1. London.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1856. Insecta Brittanica. Diptera. Vol. III. Reave and Benham, London.Google Scholar
White, R. M. (Ed.) 1965. World weather records, 1951–1960. Vol. 1. North America. Washington.Google Scholar
Williston, S. W. 1896. Manual of the families and genera of North American Diptera. 2nd ed. Hathaway, New Haven.Google Scholar
Williston, S. W. 1901. Diptera. In Godman, F. D. (Ed.), Biologia Centrali America. London.Google Scholar
Williston, S. W. 1908. Manual of North American Diptera. 3rd ed. Hathaway, New Haven.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. 1965. A consistency test for phylogenies based on contemporaneous species. Syst. Zool. 14: 214–220.Google Scholar
Winnertz, J. 1852. Dipterologisches. Stettin. ent. Ztg 13: 49–58.Google Scholar
Winnertz, J. 1863. Beitrag zu einer Monographie der Pilzmücken. Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien. 13: 637–964.Google Scholar
van der Wulp, F. M. 1861. Tidschr. ent. 4: 16–77.Google Scholar
van der Wulp, F. M. 1877. Diptera neerlandica. Vol. I. M. Nijhoff, Gravenhage.Google Scholar
Zetterstedt, J. V. 1851. Diptera Scandinaviae, disposita et descripta. Vol. 10. Lund.Google Scholar
Zetterstedt, J. V. 1855, 1860. Diptera Scandinaviae, disposita et descripta. Vol. 12 (1855); Vol. 14 (1860). Lund.Google Scholar