Diptera.info

Posted by Jan Willem on 23-05-2010 08:46

Yes, Valery is right, if you accept the splitting of Palloptera into several genera, Temnosira saltuum should be the name to use. However these genera were based on chaetotactic characters which did not lead to natural groups (this text is copied from the English Diptera checklist :) ). Although I haven't made a thorough study on this subject, I tend to agree with this opinion. That was my reason for using Palloptera saltuum instead of Temnosira saltuum.

Edited by Jan Willem on 23-05-2010 08:47

Posted by Nosferatumyia on 23-05-2010 10:13

Jan:

To my knowledge, there is a reason to consider the generic classification of Pallopteridae worldwide by J. Frank McAlpine (Can. Ent. 1981, 113: 81-91) to be sound and thoroughly based. I am using that one, as B. Merz does.

And: what is the "natural group"? Monophyletic? Non-polyphyletic?

Posted by Nosferatumyia on 23-05-2010 21:16

#10

Dear Paul:

Sorry in advance if I am unaware of some recent phylogenetic studies those prove para- or polyphyly Palloptera, Toxoneura and Temnosira. I live in the country of no Zoological Record subscription.

Unless a revision with a good cladistics is done, further lumping-splitting activity hardly would be a good idea. Until polyphyly is proven, nomenclatural stability is the only sound reason to keep on using the practical "key classification" of J.F.McAlpine and B.Merz.

So far, I only know Ho-Yeon Han's 12S, 16S and COII mit DNA sequences for 3 Far East species on GenBank, which show nothing.

I am looking forward to see any references to the modern pallopterid cladistics.

Thank you in advance.

Edited by Nosferatumyia on 23-05-2010 21:38

Posted by Paul Beuk on 23-05-2010 23:17

#11

Well, nomenclatural stability is absent here. Some use the split up genus, others the lumped genus. So far the split up genus does not seem logical to me: the same characters to separate genera here are used to separate species in others while some other characters that would appear to make sense (wing markings?) are apparently hardly of any worth...

And Zoological Record is not something that is carried by our library either.

Posted by Nosferatumyia on 24-05-2010 00:14

#12

Thanks! We all have our own reasons to and objections against accepting existing classifications: all of them are highly subjective, and the gaps between groups of taxa are hardly measurable.

However, my own position is not to rock the boat unless everybody's gonna wash and swim. I have behind me at least two major nomenclatural changes I am not very proud of: first was Terellia in Tephritidae absorbed many heterogeneous species, and the second is Ulidiidae vs. Otitidae. Both await for molecular cladistics verdict, which can either support, or disprove my point of view. In both cases, I am trying not to make any fuss until the "final truth" is achieved.

I.e., checklists and faunistical papers are not good places for changing or even discussing any subjective nomenclatural problems. Nomenclature must be stable, unless it contradicts well-proven phylogenetic grouping by supporting polyphyletic taxa.

I am waiting for the moment when Palloptera in the strict sense is undoubtedly shown to be paraphyletic, and Temnostoma and Toxoneura to be its daughter groups. And if then its result is published in a brand new "Manual of the Diptera of the World ", - I will be absolutely happy with that.

Until then, I am using the three genera. Just for stability.