A PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF THE WOODLOUSE-FLIES (DIPTERA, RHINOPHORIDAE) by THOMAS PAPE Zoological Museum Copenhagen, Denmark Abstract The Rhinophoridae are redefined on the basis of the apomorphic structure of the aedea-gus. Evidence is provided for the exclusion of four genera, viz., Angioneura Brauer & Ber-genstamm, 1893, Melanomya Rondani, 1856, Morinia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, and Ter-mitoloemus Baranov, 1936; all four are transferred to the Calliphoridae. The genera of Rhi-nophoridae are analyzed phylogenetically with the aid of the results of the present mvestigation and the sparse information available on the morphology of the larval stages. The structure of the aedeagus provides several set-defining characters and the aedeagus of many species is depicted for the first time. Cirillia Rondani, 1856, is proposed as a synonym oi Phyto Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. Introduction Within the calyptrate fhes the species with a row of bristles on the meron (hypopleuron) constitute a well-corroborated monophyletic group, the Tachinoidea (Tachinidae sensu Girschner (1893), Calliphoroidea sensu Hennig (1958), Tachinidae (sensu lato) sensu Griffiths (1972), or Oestroidea sensu McAlpine et al. (1981)). Most recent authors, including the pre-sent, accept five major groups in the Tachinoi-dea, viz., Oestridae (sensu lato), Calliphoridae, Sarcophagidae, Tachinidae, and Rhinophoridae. Although Crosskey (1965) restricts the name Tachinoidea to the Calliphoridae, Sarcophagi-dae, Tachinidae, and Rhinophoridae, synapo-morphies not shared by the Oestridae (which would be their sister group), to my knowledge have not been provided for these four families by any author. The family Stackelbergomyiidae Rohdendorf, 1948, was obviously established because no evi-dence for incorporatmg the smgle aberrant spe-cies into any of the existing families could be found. An investigation by Herting (1981) sug-gests that it should be included in the Tachini-dae. More interesting are the Neotropical Me-sembrinellinae (Calliphoridae). Crosskey (1965) is of the opinion that an improved classification of the Tachinoidea (in his definition as given above) would result if "peculiar groups such as Mesembrinellinae were treated as families" (p. 43). Guimaraes (1977) follows this recommen-dation and raises the group to family status: Mesembrinellidae, founding his decision on five "consistent differences" between Mesembrinel-linae and the remaining Calliphoridae. These differences corroborate the monophyly of the MesembrinelHnae, but the Calliphoridae sensu Guimaraes are characterized solely on symple-siomorphies and fail to support a family status of the Mesembrinellinae. An argument for split-tingup the Calliphoridae would be that the sim-ple, non-opercular lappet of the mesembrinel-line metathoracic spiracle is plesiomorphic, as this would separate the Mesembrinellinae (still monophyletic) not from the Calliphoridae but from all other Tachinoidea, the monophyly of which would be corroborated by their opercu-lar metathoracic spiracle. This may be the rea-son for Crosskey 's (1965: 43) note that the Me-sembrinellinae "may not be Tachinoidea at all". I hesitate to place the Mesembrinellinae as sister group to all other Tachinoidea and prefer to treat them as Calliphoridae. The structure of the mesembnnelline aedeagus with strong, for-wardly curved dorsolateral processes (paraphal-li) seems a reasonable synapomorphy with the Calliphoridae (and perhaps with the Rhinopho-ridae?). A small digression may be made here, brought about by the recent (and past) dis-agreement of family status criteria. Some au-thors, e.g., Steyskal (1974) and Hackman &: Väisänen (1982), have mentioned the inconsis-tency of Griffiths' (1972) splitting of the Musci-dae sensu Hennig (1958, 1965) into Muscidae and Fanniidac when he unites all tachinoid flies in a single family: Tachinidae (sensu lato). 15
BioStor
