PROC. BIOL. SOC. WASH. 103(4), 1990. pp. 891-906 TAXONOMIC NOTES ON EPHYDRIDAE (DIPTERA) Wayne N. Mathis and Tadeusz Zatwamicki Abstract. —Several zoological and nomenclatural items concerning Nearctic Ephydridae, which will be modified in a forthcoming checklist of North Amer-ican Diptera, are presented and explained. Usage of the family-group names Gymnomyzinae and Gymnomyzini is discussed; Athyroglossa {Parathyroglos-sa) dinorata, a new species, is described (= A. ordinata of American authors, not Becker); the synonymy of the genus Gymnomyza Fallen with Mosillus Latreille is explained; the tribe Ochtherini is transferred to the subfamily Gym-nomyzinae where character evidence allies it with the tribe Gymnomyzini; the tribe Lipochaetini is recognized and Nearctic genera assigned; Pelignellus is synonymized with Atissa; Pelignus salinus Cresson is transferred to Schema Becker; Hecamedoides glaucellus unispinosus is given species status (= H. glaucellus of American authors, not Stenhammar); Nesopsilopa Mathis & Wirth is relegated to subgeneric status under Guttipsilopa Wirth; the subfamily Hy-adininae Phillips et al. is given precedence over Gastropinae Cresson by our present action as first revisors; three subspecies in the genus Pelina {bispinosa, latiforma, and prospinosa) are given species status; possible relationships of the tribe Parydrini are discussed; Parydra parasocia Clausen is synonymized with Ephydra fossarum Haliday; Parydra halteralis joaquinensis Clausen is given species status; the tribe Philygriini is diagnosed for the first time; Philygris opposita Loew, 1861 is synonymized with Notiphila puanctatonervosa 1813; Ephydra lata Walker, 1858 is synonymized with Ephydra ripara Fallen, 1813; Ephydra oscitans Walker is discussed; and Ephydra gracilis Packard, 1871 is given precedence over Ephydra cinerea Jones, 1906. While preparing material for a catalog on have arranged each taxon being treated by the dipterous family Ephydridae, more its subfamily. If taxa being treated within a commonly known as shore flies, we noted subfamily belong to different tribes, then several zoological and nomenclatural tribes are also cited. The general method-changes that should be explained in greater ology used in this study was explained pre-detail than the format of a catalog normally viously (Mathis 1 986). The descriptive ter-permits. The changes that pertain to the Ne-minology, with the exceptions noted (Mathis arctic fauna are explained here, as that fauna 1986), follows that published in the recent will soon be treated in a checkUst of Diptera Manual of Nearctic Diptera, Vol. 1 (Mc-to be pubhshed by the United States De-Alpine 1981). One head and two venational partmentof Agriculture. Some of the prob-ratios are used commonly in the dcscrip-lems concern only nomenclature; others en-tions and are defined here for the conve-tail both zoological and nomenclatural nience of the user (all ratios arc averages of matters. three specimens, the largest and smallest Methods. —As a framework for this paper available and one other). and to be explicit about the classification Eye-to-cheek ratio: genal height (immc-that results from changes made herein, we diately below eye)/eye height.
BioStor
