pun_logo

The Society for the study of flies (Diptera)

Affiliated to the British Entomological and Natural History Society (BENHS)

You are not logged in.

#1 2018-03-05 02:15:47

Andrew Cunningham
DF Members
Name: Andrew Cunningham
From: Devon, UK.
Registered: 2010-11-05
Posts: 911

Fannia glaucescens status

Hello,

Falk & Pont 2017 list Fannia glaucescens (Zetterstedt) as pNationally Scarce yet the checklist suggests this is now F. armata.

If this is correct then does the status (pNationally Scarce) transfer to this (Fannia armata) or hang in limbo pending the next review?

Regards,
Andrew.

PS : Apologies if I make no sense. I am confused!

Offline

 

#2 2018-03-05 12:23:48

Tony Irwin
DF Members
Name: Tony Irwin
From: Norwich
Registered: 2008-03-01
Posts: 830

Re: Fannia glaucescens status

My understanding is that Zetterstedt's type of glaucescens was shown to be armata, and the species that people had thought was glaucescens would need to be known by a different name. Fannia lucidula (a later Zetterstedt species) was the suggested alternative. What I'm not sure about is why Falk & Pont 2107 use the name glaucescens, rather than lucidula. Either I've missed something, or the Falk & Pont reference to glaucescens is a lapsus. Either way, the status is not going to transfer to armata.

Offline

 

#3 2018-03-05 23:09:56

Andrew Cunningham
DF Members
Name: Andrew Cunningham
From: Devon, UK.
Registered: 2010-11-05
Posts: 911

Re: Fannia glaucescens status

Thanks for clarification of sorts, Tony. I think I shall leave the status space blank for Fannia lucidula in my spreadsheet in that case.

Regards,
Andrew.

Offline

 

#4 2018-03-06 17:33:05

conopid
DF Members
Name: Nigel Jones
From: Shrewsbury
Registered: 2008-02-27
Posts: 703
Website

Re: Fannia glaucescens status

Hi Andrew,
I've just consulted Adrian Pont's review of Fanniidae and my understanding is the same as Tony's. In which case I think you can list lucidula (what we used to call glaucescens) as Nationally Scarce status. I am sure in the status review, it is just an oversight, using an old name and forgetting it's been revised. I suppose we could just check with Steven or Adrian to be certain, but no other explanation seems possible.

Whatever you end up producing, are you thinking of circulating this to fellow dipterists? If so I'd be interested in getting a copy. I like Fanniidae!


Nigel Jones
Shropshire

Offline

 

#5 2018-03-06 22:49:26

Andrew Cunningham
DF Members
Name: Andrew Cunningham
From: Devon, UK.
Registered: 2010-11-05
Posts: 911

Re: Fannia glaucescens status

Thanks, Nigel. I add add the status to Fannia lucidula in that case.

I have updated the genitalia plates for Fanniidae and am happy to share this with anyone.

The above is referring to the creation of a spreadsheet with statuses on it from all the reviews I can find to make records easier to compile for the Devon Fly Group field meetings and feedback to site managers. When this is finished, I am happy to share this too since it would allow any mistakes to be pointed out to me!

Regards,
Andrew.

Offline

 

#6 2018-03-06 23:04:50

Andrew Cunningham
DF Members
Name: Andrew Cunningham
From: Devon, UK.
Registered: 2010-11-05
Posts: 911

Re: Fannia glaucescens status

Nigel,

Could you email me using an account other than your talktalk address as I have tried to email the plates twice and they both bounced back.

Regards,
Andrew.

Offline

 

#7 2018-03-07 11:32:18

Andrew Cunningham
DF Members
Name: Andrew Cunningham
From: Devon, UK.
Registered: 2010-11-05
Posts: 911

Re: Fannia glaucescens status

Hello again,

One more query regarding Pipunculiudae in (JNCC) Falk & Chandler, 2005. Am I correct in assuming the below...

Pipunculus spinipes Meigen becomes Pipunculus campestris Latreille?

Cephalops chlorionae (Frey) becomes Cephalops straminipes (Becker)?

Regards,
Andrew.

Offline

 

#8 2018-03-07 12:10:51

Tony Irwin
DF Members
Name: Tony Irwin
From: Norwich
Registered: 2008-03-01
Posts: 830

Re: Fannia glaucescens status

Yes, Kehlmaier (Pipunculus) and Kehlmaier and De Meyer (Cephalops) showed that they were synonyms, rather than being valid species. Accordingly the conservation status is deleted (not transferred to the species with which they are synonymized).

Last edited by Tony Irwin (2018-03-07 12:19:19)

Offline

 

#9 2018-03-07 22:54:42

Andrew Cunningham
DF Members
Name: Andrew Cunningham
From: Devon, UK.
Registered: 2010-11-05
Posts: 911

Re: Fannia glaucescens status

Brilliant, thanks for the help again Tony.

Regards,
Andrew.

Offline

 

#10 2018-03-11 01:31:11

Andrew Cunningham
DF Members
Name: Andrew Cunningham
From: Devon, UK.
Registered: 2010-11-05
Posts: 911

Re: Fannia glaucescens status

Another query concerning (JNCC) Falk & Crossley, 2005...

Platypalpus excisus (Becker) becomes Platypalpus excavatus Yang & Yao, 2007

The former was "Lower Risk (Nationally Scarce)", does this transfer to the latter?

Platypalpus niveiseta Zetterstedt becomes Platypalpus caroli Grootaert, 1987

As above, the former was "Lower Risk (Nationally Scarce)", does this transfer to the latter?

Regards,
Andrew.

Last edited by Andrew Cunningham (2018-03-11 01:40:01)

Offline

 

#11 2018-03-11 02:37:44

Tony Irwin
DF Members
Name: Tony Irwin
From: Norwich
Registered: 2008-03-01
Posts: 830

Re: Fannia glaucescens status

Yes, excavatus Yang & Yao is a new name for excisus (Becker) - all the material previously identified as excisus (Becker) is now excavatus, so it can take on the status.
P. niveiseta was shown to be more than one species, and almost all the material from Britain was shown to be caroli, so it has been suggested that the status should be transferred to caroli. (See Ismay, Smith & Falk 2009)

Offline

 

#12 2018-03-12 23:01:07

Andrew Cunningham
DF Members
Name: Andrew Cunningham
From: Devon, UK.
Registered: 2010-11-05
Posts: 911

Re: Fannia glaucescens status

Thanks again for the help, Tony. I will look for the 2009 paper you referred to.

Regards,
Andrew.

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson