Biological Journal ofthe Linnean Society (1981),1 5 : 165-175
The Linnaean Species of the Families Fanniidae,
Anthomyiidae and Muscidae (Insecta: Diptera)
ADRIAN C. PONT
Department o f Entomology, British Museum (Natural History),
London, S W7 5BD, England
Acceptedfor publication November 1980
Linnaeus described eleven species in the genera Musca and Conops that are now placed in the
Fanniidae, Anthomyiidae and Muscidae. A study is presented of the types and other material of
these three families in his collection.
KEY WORDS:-
Linnaeus - Diptera - Muscoidea - type-specimens - identity.
C 0NTENTS
Introduction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Species of Fanniidae, Anthomyiidae and Muscidae described by Linnaeus
. . . . . .
Additional specimens in the Linnaeus collection
Nomencldtural summary
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
. .
.
.
165
167
174
174
175
175
INTRODUCTION
The Linnaean collection of insects is one of the great antiquarian treasures of
entomological science. After Linnaeus’ death in 1778,it passed to his son, then to
Sir J. E. Smith, and ultimately to the Linnean Society of London (seeJackson,
1890),where it is now stored in a purpose-built vault with optimal conditions of
temperature and humidity.
The only comprehensive study of the Diptera in the collection is by Haliday
(1851).He studied the collection during the winter of 1847-1848, and his report
was published as a letter to the editor of the Stettiner entomologische Zeitung, C. A.
Dohrn. He gave curatorial and taxonomic notes on all the species that he found,
but he noted that about half of the Diptera collection was missing, a comment
also repeated in a letter dated 1 1 December 1847 to the German Dipterist
Hermann Loew (see Osten Sacken, 1903: 537).His study was extremely accurate
and careful, but it is unfortunate that the nomenclatural results of his work were
not followed: as a result, changes have to be made to restore the original,
Linnaean, use of certain names that might otherwise have been made 130 years
ago.
165
0024-4066/8 1/020165 + 11$02.00/0
0 198 1 The Linnean Society of London
166
A. C. PONT
I t has often been remarked that the collection has been tampered with in an
irresponsible manner, such as the replacement of ‘poor’ specimens by fresh ones
and the addition of further specimens, since the Linnaean specimens of many
species belong to quite different species from those to which his names are
attached in modern work. Such alterations are attributed to Linnaeus’ son and to
Sir J. E. Smith. Countering this, it has been argued that such remarks are mere
artifice to cover the fact that many Linnaean species have been misidentified for
over 200 years and that the collection has not been studied by entomologists as
often as it might have been. Lindroth (1957) has discussed the problems
connected with this, and has shown the importance of tempering
fundamentalism with empiricism in any consideration of the collection. My own
conclusion is that the collection of Diptera has not been ‘vandalised’ in any way
since the death of Linnaeus. Indeed, many specimens agree so well with
Linnaeus’ statements that there can be no evading the conclusion that they are
his own specimens (e.g. cadauerina, radicum). In some other cases (e.g. domestica,
meteorica), Linnaeus’ description refers to one species whereas his specimens
belong to quite another. It seems that he observed the species in nature, but
collected and described specimens belonging to a different species. In such cases
I regard it as more important to preserve Linnaeus’ intentions, and I am not
regarding the specimens now in the collection as syntypes. Though this may
appear arbitrary, it is certainly a more desirable course than slavishly following
the specimens and wilfully changing names.
Jackson ( 19 13) published a list of Linnaean specimens compiled from
Linnaeus’ own annotations in his personal copies of the 10th and 12th editions
of the Systema Naturae, and this list corresponds with what is now in the
collections so far as the groups under consideration here are concerned. The
Diptera have recently been re-curated, and the specimens transferred to small
unit-trays with plastazote bases, one species per tray.
Linnaeus described eleven species now placed in the families Fanniidae,
Anthomyiidae and Muscidae, as follows:
Conops calcitrans, 1758
irritans, 1 758
Musca cadauerina, 17 5 8
canicularis, 1761 (unjustified replacement name for lateralis, 1758)
domestica, 1 7 5 8
lateralis, 17 58
meridiana, 1 758
meteorica, 1758
mystacea, 1758
pluuialis, 1 7 5 8
radicum. 1758
Haliday ( 185 1) found all the nine species described in Musca and gave notes on
them, but did not find any species of Conops. Jackson (1913) listed all species as
being present, and his list is based upon Linnaeus’ own annotated copies of his
works in which species present in his collection are marked. I have found that all
the species listed above are present in the collection.
LINNAEAN SPECIES OF THREE DIPTERAN FAMILIES
167
SPECIES OF FANNIIDAE, ANTHOMYIIDAE A N D MUSCIDAE
DESCRIBED BY LINNAEUS
cadaverina Linnaeus
Musca cadaverina Linnaeus, 1758: 595. L E C T O n P E 0 , “in cadaveribus”
[presumably Sweden], here designated.
Musca cadauerina Linnaeus; Linnaeus, 1761 : 45 1 ; Linnaeus, 1767 : 989.
Haliday ( 1851 : 143) found two specimens in the collection, “ ‘5 1. cadaverina,’
mit Zettel, und eins daneben . , .” and this is precisely what is in the collection
now: under Musca no. 65 in Diptera box 12 there are two specimens, both
females, each on a short thick pin with a large head, one with a label in Linnaeus’
writing “cadaverina 51” and one with a typed tag “no label”. 51 refers to the
species number in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae ( 1 758).
Linnaeus’ comment “habitat in cadaveribus” clearly refers to the larval
habitat, and both these specimens have the appearance of having been reared.
The specimen labelled as cadauerina has the abdomen missing; the legs are
twisted, which indicates its immaturity; otherwise it is in good condition. The
second female is also in good condition, but has the legs twisted and the ptilinum
still partly extruded.
I think that both these specimens are original syntypes because they are
mounted on old thick pins, they have Linnaeus’ own label and they agree with
Linnaeus’ description; the fact that both appear to have been reared is additional
confirmation of this. I have labelled the specimen bearing Linnaeus’ label
“cadaverina” and lacking the abdomen, and designate it herewith, as
LECTOTYPE. I have labelled the second specimen as PARALECTOTYPE.
This species has been consistently placed in the Muscid genus Pyrellia
Robineau-Desvoidy, and there has been no controversy over its identity for the
last 150 years or more. But the lectotype and paralectotype, which are
conspecific, both belong to the blowfly genus Lucilia Robineau-Desvoidy of the
family Calliphoridae. That the species has been misidentified for so many years
might have been guessed from the specific name cadauerina: the Calliphorid
greenbottles (genus Lucilia) breed in carrion or even living flesh, whereas the
Muscid greenbottles (genera Pyrellia, Dasyphora Robineau-Desvoidy, Eudasyphora
Townsend and Orthellia Robineau-Desvoidy) breed in the dung of herbivores,
especially cow and horse dung. Haliday himself pointed out this error when he
wrote ‘‘. . . scheinen M. caesar var. [Calliphoridael zu sein, und beide unreif.
Gewiss nicht M. cadaverina Mg. = Pyrellia id. Desvoidy.”, but he has been
ignored.
Muscu cadauerina belongs to the group of Lucilia with a dark basicosta and
setulose subcostal sclerite, of which there are three Swedish species (Ringdahl,
1952: 148): caesar (Linnaeus, 1758), illustris (Meigen, 1826), and ampullacea
Villeneuve, 1922. Females of this group are very difficult to separate, but I
believe that cadauerina is conspecific with the species generally known as caesar
Linnaeus: the third antenna1 segment is three times as long as broad, and the
lower surface of the arista has 14 rays (lectotype)or 15 and 16 rays (paralectotype).
Lucilia caesar was described just before cadaverina, although on the same page
(Linnaeus, 1758:595),and to preserve current usage I propose to continue FO use
caesar as the name for this species and to place cadaverina in synonymy with caesar.
Regarding Pyrellia cadaverina of authors, the oldest available synonyms are:
168
A. C. P O N T
Pyrellia viuida Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 : 463.
Pyrellia w t a Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830: 463.
Pyrellia cuprea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830: 464.
Since P. uiuida is the first of these to be described and is also the nominal typespecies of the genus Pyrellia, I select it, as first reviser, as the valid name for Pyrellia
cadawerina of authors.
calcitrans Linnaeus
Conops calcitrans Linnaeus, 1758: 604. LECTOTYPE 9, “habitat ad Boum pedes . . .”
[presumably Sweden], here designated.
Conops calcitrans Linnaeus; Linnaeus, 1761 : 467; Linnaeus, 1767: 1004.
There are three specimens of this species in the collection. Two females are
under Conops no. 2 in Diptera box 23. One has a typed tag “no label”, whilst the
other is labelled “calcitrans” by Linnaeus. A third female is present in Diptera
box 18. I t has no labels, but is amongst mixed unnamed Musca labelled “from
old box no. 195”. All three specimens are on short comparatively thin pins with
large heads.
Haliday (1851) did not see this species, butJackson (1913: 37) listed it as being
represented in the collection. I believe that the two specimens under Conops are
Linnaeus’ original material. Both are mounted on the same type of pin, and both
are slightly mouldy. I have labelled and designate herewith the female labelled
“calcitrans” as the LECTOTYPE and the unlabelled female ZiSPARALECTOTYPE. The
lectotype has the left hind leg missing and the paralectotype lacks some tarsal
segments, but apart from these defects and the mould both are in good
condition. I have labelled the third female as Stomoxys calcitrans L.
All three specimens are conspecific, and the species has been correctly
identified by subsequent workers. Linnaeus’ description of the habits of this
biting fly has also ensured accurate interpretation of his name. Conops calcitrans
is now placed in the genus Stomoxys Geoffroy, and has been re-described and
included in keys to the Stomoxyinae by Hennig (1964: 1038, Palaearctic), Emden
(1965: 160, Oriental), and Zumpt (1973: 98, world).
canicularis Linnaeus
Musca canicularis Linnaeus, 1761 : 454.
Musca canicularis Linnaeus; Linnaeus, 1767 : 992,
This name was proposed as a replacement name for Musca lateralis Linnaeus,
1758, without any reason or explanation being given. See under lateralis.
domestica Linnaeus
Musca domestica Linnaeus, 1758: 596. sYNTYPES, “habitat in Europae domibus,
etiam Americae”, not located.
Musca domestica Linnaeus; Linnaeus, 1761 : 453; Linnaeus, 1767: 990.
There are two specimens under this name in the collection, under Musca no. 69
in Diptera box 12. They were seen by Haliday (1851 : 143) who wrote as follows:
“ ‘54. domestica,’ mit Zettel, ist Musca hortorum, Fallh, nach welcher die
Beschreibung genommen scheint. Daneben ist Anthomyia assimilis Mg. 8.Kein
LJNNAEAN SPECIES OF THREE DIPTERAN FAMILIES
169
Exemplar der gemeinen Hausfliege ist in der Sammlung, obwohl LinnC dieselbe
vorziiglich bei seiner Darstellung im Auge hatte.”
One of the two specimens is mounted on a short stout pin with a large head,
and bears a label in Linnaeus’ hand-writing “54./domestica”. It is covered with a
few strands of mould and has the left hind leg and a few tarsal joints missing, but
is otherwise well preserved. It is a male of Morellia simplex (Loew, 18571, and is the
specimen that Haliday identified as Musca hortorum FallCn, a species now also
placed in the genus Morellia Robineau-Desvoidy.
The second specimen is mounted on a rather longer stouter pin with a large
head, and has a type-written tag “no label”. Like the previous specimen, it is a
little mouldy but is otherwise in good condition. It was correctly identified by
Haliday, and is a male of Muscina assimilis (Fallen, 1824).
It is clear from Linnaeus’ remarks on his species (“Habitat in Europae domibus,
etiam Americae. Larvae infimo Equino. Pupae parallele cubantes.”), and from the name
that he used, that he had the common house-fly in mind, universally known as
Musca domestica since 1758, as noted by Haliday. It is impossible to tell from the
generalized description given which of these two specimens Linnaeus used for the
description, though he probably used one of them since he has labelled it with
the specific name and the number in the Systema Naturae (1758). As explained in
the introduction, in cases like this I prefer to follow the spirit of Linnaeus rather
than ihe letter. N o conceivable good purpose can be served by seeking to change
the name of the house-fly. Common sense dictates that we regard the syntypes as
‘lost’ and use the name domestica, as Linnaeus intended, for the common housefly of the temperate northern hemisphere. If it is ever needed, a neotype can
always be designated for domestica.
irritans Linnaeus
Conops irritans Linnaeus, 1758: 604. LECTOTYPE 8,“habitat cum pecoribus”
[presumably Sweden], here designated.
Conops irritans Linnaeus; Linnaeus, 1761: 467; Linnaeus, 1767: 1004.
There are three specimens of this species in the collection, under Conops no. 3 in
Diptera box 23. The first specimen is a male and it bears a label in Linnaeus’ handwriting with the name “irritans”. Next to it are one male and one female, both
without labels. All three specimens are mounted on short, comparatively thin pins.
Haliday (1851) did not see this species, but Jackson (1913: 37) listed it as being
represented in the collection. I am treating all three specimens as Linnaeus’
original material. I have labelled and designate herewith the male labelled
“irritans” as the LECTOTYPE and the two unlabelled specimens as P A M LECTOTYPES. The lectotype is slightly mouldy, and the right mid leg is
missing. The male paralectotype is in good condition, and so is the female
paralectotype except that the right fore-leg is missing.
All three specimens are conspecific, and the species has been correctly identified
by subsequent workers. Linnaeus’ description of the habits of this biting fly has
also aided correct identification. Conops irritans is now placed in the genus
Haematobia Le Peletier 8c Serville, and has been re-described and included in keys
to the Stomoxyinae by Hennig (1964: 1054, Palaearctic) and Zumpt (1973: 72,
world).
170
A. C . P O N T
lateralis Linnaeus
8,“habitat in Europa”, here
designated.
Musca canicularis Linnaeus, 1761: 454; Linnaeus, 1767: 992. Unjustified
replacement name for lateralis.
Haliday (1851 : 144) found both lateralis and canicularis in Linnaeus’ collection.
He noted that canicularis as interpreted by his contemporaries was the same as
Linnaeus’ species, and that lateralis was the same. Musca lateralis is in fact the older
of the two names, and canicularis was published as a replacement name without any
reason or explanation being given, except that lateralis was considered to be an
error.
In view of this, the specimens of lateralis are to be regarded as the syntypes of
both lateralis and canicularis, whilst the specimen labelled canicularis does not have
any type-status. Musca canicularis is under Musca no. 80 in Diptera box 13, whilst
lateralis follows it, as an unnumbered species between nos. 80 and 8 1.
There are two specimens in the collection under the name lateralis, and both are
males. Both are mounted on old pins, the one rather longer and stouter than the
other, and both with large heads. One specimen has a label in Linnaeus’ handwriting “lateralis/60.”, to which has been added in pencil “Sys. Nat X”. The
second specimen has a typed tag “no label”. I consider both of these to be
syntypes. I have labelled and designate herewith the male labelled “lateralis” as
LECTOTYPE and the unlabelled male as PARALECTOTYPE . The lectotype lacks the
head and both hind legs, and the paralectotype lacks the head and both fore legs;
otherwise both specimens are in a good state ofpreservation.
There is a single specimen labelled as canicularis: it is on a stout pin, identical
with that of the paralectotype of lateralis, and has been labelled “canicularis” by
Linnaeus. The head and right fore leg are missing, and the specimen is otherwise
rather mouldy.
All three specimens are conspecific, and the species has been correctly
interpreted by subsequent workers, though it is the replacement name of canicularis
that has been used. Linnaeus’ later description of the habits of the species
(Linnaeus, 1761: 454) have ensured the correct recognition of his species. M u m
canicularis is now placed in the genus Fannia Robineau-Desvoidy, and has been redescribed and included in keys to Palaearctic and Nearctic species by Hennig
(1955: 32) and Chillcott ( 196 1 : 188) respectively.
Application was made to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature for the suppression of the name lateralis for the purposes of the Law
of Priority, and the name has now been suppressed (Opinion 884, 1969) so that
there is no threat to continued use of the name canicularis and to stability in the
nomenclature of this important species.
Musca lateralis Linnaeus, 1758: 597. LECTOTYPE
meridiana Linnaeus
Musca meridiana Linnaeus, 1758: 595. HOLOTYPE 8,
“habitat in Europa”.
Musca meridiana Linnaeus; Linnaeus, 1761 : 45 1 ; Linnaeus, 1767 : 989.
There are three specimens of this species in the collection, under Musca no. 63 in
Diptera box 12. One has a label in Linnaeus’ hand-writing with the data
“meridiana/49.” on two lines. The number 49 refers to the species number in the
LINNAEAN SPECIES O F THREE DIPTERAN FAMILIES
171
10th edition of the Systema Naturae ( 1758).I t is mounted on a thick pin with a large
head. Next to it is a specimen on a shorter thinner pin bearing a typed tag “no
label”, and next to this is a third specimen on a still thinner pin and labelled by
hahd “Angl./Huds.”’ on two lines but without any species determination.
Haliday apparently found only one specimen in the collection, since he
remarked simply “ ‘49. meridiana,’ = Mesembrina id. Mg.” and when there is a
series present he comments on each specimen. I regard the specimen labelled as
meridiana as the holotype, because of the data given by Haliday and because of the
thicker pin on which it is mounted. I regard the other two specimens as later
additions to the series. The holotype agrees with Linnaeus’ description, and I have
labelled it as holotype. I t is a male, in excellent condition. The other specimens are
both females, and I have labelled them as Mesembrina meridiana L.
The species men‘diana has been correctly understood by subsequent workers. It is
now placed in the genus Mesembrina Meigen, and has been re-described and
included in a key to Palaearctic species by Hennig ( 1963: 9 18).
meteorica Linnaeus
Musca meteorica Linnaeus, 1758: 597. SYNTYPES, “habitat in Europa”, not located.
Muscameteorica Linnaeus; Linnaeus, 1761: 455; Linnaeus, 1767: 993.
There is one specimen of this species in the collection, under Musca no. 88 in
Diptera box 13. It was seen by Haliday (1851: 144) who wrote “ ‘meteorica’, eine
Anthomyia Mg., mit linienformigen Abdomen, deshalb nicht eine Hydrotaea
Desvoidy’s. ”
The specimen, a male, is mounted on a short thin pin wihh a small head, and
bears a label in Linnaeus’ hand-writing with the information “meteorica.67”. This
number refers to the species number in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae
( 1758).The specimen is immature, with part of the ptilinum still extruded, and the
right hind leg is missing. It is rather mouldy, and this obscures some details of
body pattern and structure; part of the abdomen has been eaten away. I have
removed and macerated the abdomen, together with the left hind leg to which it
was stuck, and both are now stored in vials of glycerine alongside the specimen.
The name meteorica is now in use in the genus Hydrotaea Robineau-Desvoidy, of
which it is the type-species. It has been re-described and included in keys to
Palaearctic species by Hennig (1962: 728) and to Nearctic species by Huckett
(1954: 335). However, as Haliday noted, the Linnaean specimen is not a species of
Hydrotaea. It is in fact a male of the Anthomyiid Pegohylemyiagnaua (Meigen, 1826).
Linnaeus described the species as swarming around horses (“ora Equorum
obvolitantis”), and this is a habit more characteristic of the sweat-feeding Hydrotaea
rather than of P . gnaua which, like most Anthomyiidae, is a retiring, flower-feeding
species. The larva ofgnaua is a major pest of lettuces, whereas that ofHydrotaea lives
in mammalian dung. Linnaeus’ description actually agrees. better with the
specimen of gnava than with Hydrotaea meteorica of authors, especially “alis basis
subflavis” which is not true of meteorica of authors. However, as was the case with
domestica, I believe that an error in labelling or an error in correlating observation
with collecting has occurred. I t seems to me most desirable to preselve Linnaeus’
’ William Hudson i 1730-1 7931, best known as the author of “F~OTQ
Anglica, exhibem Plantar per regnum Anglzae
rpontecrescentes, & c . ” 11762).
172
A. C. PONT
original intention and to continue existing usage of this name, and if so required a
neotype could be designated to stabilize interpretation of the name meteorica.
mystacea Linnaeus
Musca mystacea Linnaeus, 1758: 59 1. HOLOTYPE 9, “habitat in Europa”.
Muscamystacea Linnaeus; Linnaeus, 1761: 442; Linnaeus, 1767: 983.
Musca discolor Linnaeus, 1758: 592, nomen nudum. Syn. nov.
There is one specimen of this species in the collection under Muscu no. 26 in
Diptera box 9. I t was seen by Haliday (1851: 139) who wrote “ ‘15. mystacea’,
= Volucella mystacea Mg.”.
This specimen is on a short pin with a large head, and it is pinned through a label
with Linnaeus’ hand-writing “mystacea 15” on a single line. The number 15 refers
to the species number in the loth edition of the Systema Naturae (1758). On the
reverse of the label, also in Linnaeus’ hand, is the name “discolor” and, to judge
by the direction in which the paper is frayed around an adjacent pin-hole, the
name discolor has at some time faced upwards. The specimen is a female, and in
rather good condition. I t is a little rubbed; the last three left fore tarsal segments
and all the right hind tarsal segments are missing.
This specimen agrees with Linnaeus’ description. I can see no reason for not
regarding it as holotype and have labelled it accordingly.
The species mystacea has been correctly understood by subsequent workers on
Muscidae, though the name has occasionally been incorrectly used in the family
Syrphidae (e.g. Kloet 8c Hincks, 1945: 380). I t is now placed in the genus
Mesembrinu Meigen, and has been re-described and included in a key to Palaearctic
species byHennig(1963: 921).
The name discolor, which appears on the reverse of the label, is mentioned only
once in Linnaeus’ works (Linnaeus, 1758: 5921, nor have I been able to find it used
in subsequent literature. When describing Musca intricaria he writes “Similis
Muscae discolori”. Musca discolor should therefore be regarded as a nomen nudum,
but fortunately it can be assigned to the synonymy of mystacea. Although now
placed in the family Syrphidae, intricaria bears a superficial resemblance to mystacea
in body shape and hair colour so that I have no doubt over the correctness of the
synonymy given above.
pluvialis Linnaeus
Muscapluvialis Linnaeus, 1758: 597. H O L O ~ P E8, “habitat in Europa”.
Muscapluvialis Linnaeus; Linnaeus, 1761: 455;Linnaeus, 1767: 992.
There is one specimen of this species in the collection, under M u m no. 83 in
Diptera box 13. I t was seen by Haliday (1851: 144) who wrote “‘pluvialis,’
= Anthomyia id. Mg. g.”.
The specimen, a male, is mounted on a short pin with a large head, and is pinned
through a label in Linnaeus’ hand-writing “62. pluvialis”. The number 62 refers
to the species number in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae (1758). The
specimen is a male and is rather mouldy so that much detail on the thorax and
abdomen is concealed. Apart from this, it is well preserved.
This specimen agrees well with Linnaeus’ description. I can see no reason for
not regarding it as holotype and have labelled it accordingly.
LINNAEAN SPECIES O F THREE DIPTERAN FAMILIES
173
The species has generally been correctly understood by subsequent workers,
and is now placed in the genus Anthomyia Meigen. It has recently been dealt with in
a revision of thepluuialis complex by Michelsen (1980: 285): much difficulty has
been found in the differentiation of and correct nomenclature for the species in
this complex, but it can be stated that pluuialis in the sense of Michelsen
corresponds to the Linnaean type and is correctly identified.
radicum Linnaeus
Musca radicum Linnaeus, 1758: 596. HOLOTYPE 8,
“habitat in radicibus Raphani”
[presumablySweden].
Musca radicum Linnaeus; Linnaeus, 1761 : 454; Linnaeus, 1767 : 99 1.
There is one specimen of this species in the collection and it was seen by Haliday
(1851: 144) who remarked on its poor condition: “ ‘radicum,’ ein schlechtes
Exemplar, unkenntlich, aber nicht Anthomyia id. Mg., da das linienfisrmig
Abdomen schmal, und der Mundrand nicht vorragend ist.”
The specimen, a male, is under Musca no. 79 in Diptera box 13. I t is on a short
pin with a large head, and bears a label in Linnaeus’ hand-writing with the data on
two lines “radicum/59.”. The number 59 refers to the species number in the 10th
edition of the Systema Naturae ( 1758).There is a little mould on it, and the right mid
and hind legs are both missing, but otherwise it is in fair condition.
The species radicum is now placed in the genus Paregle Schnabl and has most
recently been re-described by Hennig (1967: 165). Haliday (1851: 144)had, however, noted that the Linnaean specimen of radicum was not the same species as
that generally called radicum by his contemporaries, nor does the specimen
correspond to the modern concept of the species which is the same as that of
Haliday’s contemporaries. Linnaeus’ specimen is in fact the species now known as
Delia brassicae (Wiedemann, 18 17) (syn. brassicae BouchC, 18331, the cabbage-root
fly, a well-known agricultural pest in temperate areas of the northern hemisphere,
and this was pointed out by Hennig (1974: 753) on the basis ofan earlymanuscript
of this paper that I sent to him. Linnaeus described his radicum as “habitat in
radicibus Raphani”, and brassicae is in fact the principal Anthomyiid pest of
radishes (Raphanus satiuus L.) and the only one quoted as attacking them in most
standard textbooks. The name radicum is a clear reference to the larval habitat. On
the other hand, the larva of Paregle radicum is coprophagous or even saprophagous,
not phytophagous. This biological evidence, and the fact that the Linnaean
specimen agrees with the original description, convinces me that it is original
material and not a specimen subsequently placed in the collection, and I have
accordingly labelled it as holotype.
Curiously enough, it seems that the early 19th century authors correctly
recognized radicum as the cabbage-root fly. For example, Fallen (1824: 72) wrote
that the larva of radicum lived in the roots of Raphanus and Brassica, and he
synonymized brassicae Wiedemann with radicum Linnaeus. Meigen (1826: 168)also
synonymized brassicae with radicum and made no reference in his description to the
projecting epistoma which is such a conspicuous feature of Paregle radicum of
authors. I t appears to have been Bouchk (1833: 131; 1834: 74-76) who used the
name radicum for the coprophagous species and described the cabbage-root fly as
brassicae BouchC.
The name radicum Linnaeus should now be used for the cabbage-root fly. For
174
A. C. PONT
Paregle radicum of authors, the name audacula Harris, 1780, is available (see Pont &
Michelsen, in press).
ADDITIONAL SPECIMENS IN THE LINNAEUS COLLECTION
In addition to the species listed above, there are a few other specimens of
Fanniidae, Anthomyiidae and Muscidae in the collection :
( 1) “maculata Scopol.” A specimen bearing this label is presumably the Swedish
specimen mentioned by Linnaeus (1767: 990).It is under Musca no. 70 in
Diptera box 12. I t is not in good condition, but is a correctly-named female of
Graphomya maculata (Scopoli).Haliday ( 1851 : 143)saw this specimen and noted
its identity.
(2) Haliday (1851: 145) remarked that at the end of the collection “. . . sind
ausserdem die Fragmente von drei Anthomyiae, unbenannt.” These three
specimens are still present in a batch of mixed unnamed Diptera in Diptera
box 16, under the label “from old box no. 162”.
(a) One male, with no head and with few legs. Paregle audacula Harris
(=radicum ofauthors).
(b) One male, with no head and with few legs. Paregle audacula Harris
(= radicum of authors).
(c) One male, with abdomen and some legs missing. Fannia incisurata
(Zetterstedt).
(3) The third specimen in the series of Musca caesar Linnaeus, under Musca no. 64 in
Diptera box 12, is not a specimen of the genus Lucilia Robineau-Desvoidy, as
Haliday already noted (1851: 1431, but is a female of Orthellia cornicina
(Fabricius) (synonyms: viridzs Wiedemann, caesarion Meigen).
NOMENCLATURAL SUMMARY
FAN N I I DAE
Fannia canicularis (Linnaeus, 1761)
lateralis (Linnaeus, 1758)[suppressed]
ANTH 0MYI IDAE
Anthomyiapluvialis (Linnaeus, 1 758)
Delia radicum (Linnaeus, 17581,comb. nov.
brassicae (Wiedemann, 18 17)
brassicae (BouchC, 18331,syn. nov.
Paregle audacula (Harris, 17 80)
radicum (Linnaeus);authors, not Linnaeus [misidentifications].
MU S C I DAE
Musca domestica Linnaeus, 1758
Pyrellia vivida Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830
cadaverina (Linnaeus);authors, not Linnaeus [misidentifications].
Mesernbrina meridiana (Linnaeus, 1758)
Mesembrina mystacea (Linnaeus, 1758)
discolor (Linnaeus, 1758)[nomen nuduml, syn. nov.
Hydrotaeameteorica (Linnaeus, 1758)
Stomoxys calcitrans (Linnaeus, 1758)
Haematobia irritans (Linnaeus, 1758)
LINNAEAN SPECIES O F THREE DIPTERAN FAMILIES
175
CALLIPHORIDAE
Lucilia caesar (Linnaeus, 1758)
cadauen'na (Linnaeus, 17581, syn. nov.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am very grateful to Mr T. O'Grady and Miss M. E. Young for permission to
study the Linnaean collection, and to Mr W. H. T. Tarns for his advice with the
labels and ins of the Linnaean specimens; to Dr G. C. D. Griffiths and Dr V.
Michelsen or their comments on Musca radicum, and to Dr Michelsen again for
reading a previous draft of this manuscript; and to my colleagues on the Diptera
sections at the British Museum (Natural History) for discussion of the problems
arising from the study of the Linnaean collection.
P
REFERENCES
B OUC Ht, P. F., 1833. Nalurgeschichte der schiidlichen und nutrlichen Garten-Insehten und die bewiihrtesten Mittef zur
Vertilgung der ersteren, vi + 176 pp. Berlin.
BOUCHL, P. F., 1834. Nalurgeschichte der Insertten, besonders in Hinsicht ihrer ersten Zustande a l s Laruen und Puppen.
Volume 1: vi + 2 16 pp., 10 plates. Berlin.
CHILLCOTT, J. G., 1961. A Revision ot the Nearctic Species ot Fanniinae (Diptera: Muscidae). Canadian
Entomologist, 92, Supplement 14 [19601:295 pp.. figs A-I and 1-289,61 maps, 1 table.
EMDEN, F. I. VAN, 1965. The Fauna ofIndia and the Adjacent Countries. Diptera, 7, Muscidae,part 1: xiv+647 pp.,
156 figs., 2 plates: Delhi.
FALLLN, C. F., 1824. MonographiaMusn'dumSueciae. PartVII: 65-72. Lundae.
HALIDAY, A. H., 1851. Sendschreiben an C. A. Dohrn tiber die Dipteren der in London befindlichen
Linneischen Samrnlung. Aus dem Englischen ubersetzt von Anna Dohrn. Stettiner entumologische Zeitung, 12:
131-145.
HENNIG, W . , 1955-1964. Muscidae. In E. Lindner, (Ed.) Fliegenpalaearkt. Reg., 63b: 11.10 pp., 429 text-figs.,
33 plates. Stuttgart.
HENNIG, W., 1966-1976. Anthomyiidae. In E. Lindner, (Ed.) Fliegen palaearht. Reg., 63a: 974 + lxxviii pp.,
766 + 131 text-figs., 114plates. Stuttgart.
HUCKETT, H. C., 1954. A Review of the North American Species Belonging to the Genus Hydrotaea RobineauDesvoidy (Diptera, Muscidae). Annals ofthe Entomological Society ofAmerica, 47: 3 16-342.
JACKSON, B. D., 1890. History of the Linnean collections, prepared for the Centenary Anniversary of the
Linnean Society. Proceedings ofthe Linnean Society of London, 1887-1888: 18-34.
JACKSON, B. D., 1913. Catalogue of the Linnean Specimens ofAmphibia, Insecta and Testacea, noted by Carl
von Linni.'Proceedings ofthe Linwan SocietyofLondon, 1912-1913, Supplement: 1-44.
KLOET, G. S . & HINCKS, W. D., 1945. A Check List ofBritish Insects, lix + 483 pp. Arbroath.
LINDROTH, C . H., 1957. The Linnaean Species of Carabid Beetles.Joum1 of the Linnean Society ofLondon, 43:
325-341,l fig.
LINNAEUS, C., 1758. Systema Naturaeper regnu tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum caracteribus,
d&hntiis, synonjmuc, locis. 10th ed., Volume 1: 824 pp. Holmiae.
LINNAEUS, C., 1761. Fauna Suecica Sistens Animalia Surciae R e p , 2nd ed. [revised], [xlviiil + 578 pp., 2 plates.
Stockholrniae.
LINNAEUS, C., 1767. Systema Naturaeper regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum caracteribus,
dtfferentiis, synonymis, locis. 12th ed. [revised],Volume 1, part 2 : 533-1327. Holmiae.
MEIGEN, J . W . , 1826. Systematische Eeschreibung der bekannten europaischen zwegiigeliga Insekten. Volume 5:
xii + 412 pp. Hamm.
MICHELSEN, V., 1980. The Anthumyia pluvialis complex in Europe (Diptera, Anthomyiidae). Systematic
Entomology, 5 : 28 1-290,23 figs.
OPINION 884, 1969. Musca lateralis Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Diptera): suppressed under the plenary powers.
Bullelin ofZoological Nomenclature, 26: 123-124.
OSTEN SACKEN, C. R., 1903. Record of my lye work in Entomology, viii + 242 pp., 4 plates. Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
PONT, A. C., & MICHELSEN, V., In press. The Muscoidea described by Moses Harris (Diptera: Fanniidae,
Scathophagidae, Anthomyiidae, Muscidae). Steenstrupia.
RINGDAHL, O., 1952. Catalogus Insectorum Sueciae. XI. Diptera Cyclorrapha: Muscaria Schizornetopa.
OpusculaEntomologica, 1 7 : 129-186.
ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY, A. J. B., 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Mimoiresprisentispar d r u m Savants a I'Acadimie
Royale d e s Sciences de l'lnstitutde France, 2: 8 13 pp.
ZUMPT, F., 1973. The Stomoxyine bitingjltes ofthe world. Diptera: Muscidae. Taxonomy, biology, economic importance and
controlmeasures, viii + 175 pp. Stuttgart.