[Syrphidae] Syrphus sexguttatus

[Francis Gilbert]

from Neal Evenhuis neale at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org>

Hi guys,

I’ve opened up SD to see what’s going on. Meigen 1838 is actually a subsequent usage of Meigen’s 1835 sexguttata -- this is the way we have it in our Meigen paper (Evenhuis & Pape 2019). SD has not yet been updated for the Meigen names. I have yet to go through all of them in our 2019 paper and update SD. This case now is updated, but there are a few thousand Meigen names left to do! 😊 (It took me all last night just to add the Meigen genus-group names in Hendel 1908).

I checked to see how the Palaearctic Catalogue dealt with the two names but it has compositarum as valid and sexguttata of Meigen 1835 as a junior synonym of lasiophthalma. I have no idea how Chris put the two together. Shall I treat sexguttata the same as in the Palaearctic Catalogue (under lasiophthalma)? Or is there a more recent paper on sexguttata …. ?

Let me know. Thnx!

Neal

On Stardate 11/2/21, 1:48 AM, "ximo mengual sanchis" <xmengual at gmail.com<mailto:xmengual at gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks Thomas,

I overlooked the date of Wulp; my mistake. You are right, it was the other way around. I can accept a typo from Chris and that the valid name is Syrphus sexguttatus Meigen, 1835, but why is this taxon cited as Melangyna compositarum in all recent literature?

No, SD should not be used to justify one or another decision, but it brought tot my attention this 'issue'. The important question here is about sexguttaus and compositarum, I guess.

Cheers,

Ximo



El mar, 2 nov 2021 a las 12:36, Thomas Pape (<tpape at snm.ku.dk<mailto:tpape at snm.ku.dk>>) escribió:
Dear Ximo,

Thanks for helping to get things straight in Systema Dipterorum.
Simple questions in nomenclature are often not so easy to solve, but here is my take:

You mention that “Syrphus sexguttaus Meigen, 1835 and Syrphus sexguttatus Meigen, 1838 are junior homonyms of Syrphus sexguttata Wulp, 1882”.
It certainly is the other way round. Syrphus sexguttata Wulp, 1882 is annotated as a junior synonym in Systema Dipterorum, but it should also be given as a junior primary homonym.

Syrphus sexguttatus Meigen, 1835 is given in Systema Dipterorum as a junior synonym of Melangyna (Melangyna) sexguttata (Meigen, 1838). My take is that Chris simply happened to switch the two homonymous names around.

SD also lists Syrphus compositarum Verrall, 1873 as a junior synonym of Melangyna (Melangyna) sexguttata Meigen, which looks correct if it is the senior of the two Meigen names.

Some confusion certainly is apparent here, and this is why Neal and I are very strict on providing all records in SD with an authority reference (which will take time …). SD should not bring any new taxonomic or nomenclatural decisions. Chris largely followed this approach, with syrphids being an exception.

/Thomas


From: ximo mengual sanchis <xmengual at gmail.com<mailto:xmengual at gmail.com>>
Sent: 2. november 2021 12:01
To: Hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>>; Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org>>; Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk<mailto:tpape at snm.ku.dk>>
Subject: About Syrphus sexguttatus - reference needed

You don't often get email from xmengual at gmail.com<mailto:xmengual at gmail.com>. Learn why this is important<http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
Dear all,

I have a very simple question, easy to solve, but I cannot find a reference for citing.

The name Syrphus sexguttatus Meigen, 1838 appears as a valid senior synonym of Syrphus compositarum Verral, 1873. Recent literature use Melangyna compositarum as a valid name for this taxon.

Syrphus sexguttaus Meigen, 1835 and Syrphus sexguttatus Meigen, 1838 are junior homonyms of Syrphus sexguttata Wulp, 1882 (a synonym of Scaeva melanostoma Macquart). Thus, I assume that people use the junior synonym Melangyna compositarum for Syrphus sexguttatus Meigen as it is an homonym of Syrphus sexguttatus Wulp. Any reference for this?

Secondly, why is Syrphus sexguttatus Meigen, 1838the valid reference citation and not Syrphus sexguttaus Meigen, 1835 ?

Any help is welcome.

Thanks,

Ximo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20211102/ecfd9802/attachment-0001.html>