Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:39:47.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GENERIC REVISION OF THE CLINOCERINAE (EMPIDIDAE), AND DESCRIPTION AND PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS OF THE TRICHOPEZINAE, NEW STATUS (DIPTERA: EMPIDOIDEA)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Bradley J. Sinclair
Bradley J. Sinclair
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sixteen genera are recognized in the Clinocerinae (Diptera: Empididae): Dipsomyia Bezzi, Proagomyia Collin, Asymphyloptera Collin, Proclinopyga Melander, Rhyacodromia Saigusa, Trichoclinocera Collin, Clinocera Meigen, Oreothalia Melander, Roederiodes Coquillett, Clinocerella Engel, new status, Hypenella Collin, Kowarzia Mik, Dolichocephala Macquart, Phaeobalia Mik, Bergenstammia Mik, and Wiedemannia Zetterstedt. The subgenera of Clinocera are no longer recognized and the genus is divided into six tentative informal species groups. The following new generic synonyms are proposed: Hydrodromia Macquart = Clinocera; Archiclinocera Frey and Hypoclinocera Frey = Kowarzia; Lamposoma Becker, Fur Garrett Jones, and Obstinocephala Garrett Jones = Dolichocephala. A key to genera is provided for the identification of adult specimens of Clinocerinae, all genera are described, several lectotypes are designated, and male and female terminalia are illustrated. A world list of species is included for each genus, identifying new combinations. Cladistic relationships of the genera of the Clinocerinae are presented.

Zanclotus Wilder is transferred from the Clinocerinae to the Oreogetoninae. Dryodromia Rondani, also formerly in Clinocerinae, is considered to be most closely related to Hesperempis Melander, both of which are hypothesized to share apomorphies with the Empidinae + Hemerodromiinae. The genera Boreodromia Coquillett, Ceratempis Melander, Ephydrempis Saigusa, Niphogenia Melander, Sabroskyella Wilder, and Trichopeza Rondani also are removed from the Clinocerinae and transferred to the subfamily Trichopezinae, new status. In addition, Apalocnemis Philippi, Gloma Meigen, Hyperperacera Collin (all formerly in Oreogetoninae) and Heleodromia Haliday (formerly in Hemerodromiinae) are transferred to the Trichopezinae. Heterophlebus Philippi (formerly in Oreogetoninae) and Rubistella Garrett Jones (formerly in Brachystomatinae) are removed from synonymy and also transferred to the Trichopezinae. This subfamily is described, and the phylogenetic relationships and.geographic distribution of the included genera are discussed. The Trichopezinae is considered most closely related to the Brachystomatinae (exclusive of Homalocnemis Philippi) and Ceratomerinae. These three subfamilies are hypothesized to represent the sister group to the Microphorinae + Dolichopodidae.

Résumé

Seize genres sont reconnus au sein de la sous-famille des Clinocerinae (Diptera : Empididae) : Dipsomyia Bezzi, Proagomyia Collin, Asymphyloptera Collin, Proclinopyga Melander, Rhyacodromia Saigusa, Trichoclinocera Collin, Clinocera Meigen, Oreothalia Melander, Roederiodes Coquillett, Clinocerella Engel, nouveau statut, Hypenella Collin, Kowarzia Mik, Dolichocephala Macquart, Phaeobalia Mik, Bergenstammia Mik et Wiedemannia Zetterstedt. Les sous-genres de Clinocera ne sont plus reconnus et le genre est divisé provisoirement en six groupes informels d’espèces. Les synonymies suivantes sont proposées : Hydrodromia Macquart = Clinocera, Archiclinocera Frey et Hypoclinocera Frey = Kowarzia, Lamposoma Becker, Fur Garrett Jones et Obstinocephala Garrett Jones = Dolichocephala. Une clé des genres permettra de distinguer les adultes des Clinocerinae; tous les genres sont décrits, plusieurs lectotypes sont désignés et les pièces génitales des mâles et des femelles sont illustrées. Pour chaque genre, une liste des espèces à l’échelle mondiale tient compte des nouvelles combinaisons. Les résultats de l’analyse des relations cladistiques des genres de Clinocerinae sont présentés ici.

Zanclotus Wilder est transféré des Clinocerinae aux Oreogetoninae. Dryodromia Rondani, également un ancien Clinocerinae, se rapproche surtout d’Hesperempis Melander, et les deux genres semblent partagé des apomorphies avec les Empidinae + Hemerodromiinae. Les genres Boreodromia Coquillett, Ceratempis Melander, Ephydrempis Saigusa, Niphogenia Melander, Sabroskyella Wilder et Trichopeza Rondani sont également transférés des Clinocerinae à la sous-famille des Trichopezinae, nouveau statut. De plus, Apalocnemis Philippi, Gloma Meigen, Hyperperacera Collin (autrefois des Oreogetoninae) et Heleodromia Haliday (autrefois un Hemerodromiinae) sont transférés aux Trichopezinae. Heterophlebus Philippi (autrefois dans les Oreogetoninae) et Rubistella Garrett Jones (autrefois chez les Brachystomatinae) ont leur statut rétabli et sont également transférés aux Trichopezinae. La nouvelle sous-famille est décrite et les relations phylogénétiques entre les genres de même que leurs répartitions géographiques respectives sont examinées. La nouvelle sous-famille se rapproche surtout des Brachystomatinae (à l’exception d’Homalocnemis Philippi) et des Ceratomerinae. On suppose que les trois sous-familles constituent le groupe soeur des Microphorinae + Dolichopodidae.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 127 , Issue 5 , October 1995 , pp. 665 - 752
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bährmann, R. 1960. Vergleichend-morphologische Untersuchungen der männlichen Kopulationsorgane bei Empididen. Beiträge zur Entomologie 10(5/6): 485–540.Google Scholar
Becker, T. 1889. Neue Dipteren aus Dalmatien, gesammelt auf einer Reise im Mai 1889. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift 33: 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, T. 1908. Dipteren der Kanarischen Inseln. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin 4(1): 1–180.Google Scholar
Becker, T. 1910. Orthorrhapha Brachycera; Cyclorrhapha Holometopa. pp. 635–652 in Becker, T., Kuntze, A., Schnabl, J., and Villeneuve, E. (Eds.), Dipterlogische Sammelreise nach Korsika (Dipt.). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1910 (6): 635–665.Google Scholar
Becker, T. 1914. Diptères nouveau récoltés par MM. Ch. Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique orientale 1911–1912. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 83: 120–130.Google Scholar
Becker, T., Bezzi, M., Bischof, J., Kertész, K., and Stein, P. (Eds.). 1903. Katalog der paläarktischen Dipteren. Vol. 1. Budapest. 396 pp.Google Scholar
Bertrand, H. 1948. Les insectes hygropétriques. L'Entomologiste 4(2): 86–100.Google Scholar
Bezzi, M. 1899. Contribuzioni alla Fauna Ditterologica Italiana. II. Ditteri delle Marche e degli Abruzzi. Bullettino della Società Entomologica Italiana 30: 121–164.Google Scholar
Bezzi, M. 1904. Empididae novae Palaearcticae ex Museo Nationali Hungarico. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 2: 198–202.Google Scholar
Bezzi, M. 1905. Clinocerae tres novae ex Europa. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 3: 362–366.Google Scholar
Bezzi, M. 1909. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der südamerikanischen Dipterenfauna. Fam. Empididae. Nova Acta Leopoldino-Carolinae 91: 299–406.Google Scholar
Bickel, D.J. 1987. A revision of the Oriental and Australasian Medetera (Diptera: Dolichopodidae). Records of the Australian Museum 39: 195–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigot, M. 1856. Essai d'une classification générale et synoptique de l'ordre des Insectes Diptères. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (3)4: 51–91.Google Scholar
Bletchly, J.D. 1954. The mouth-parts of the Dance Fly, Empis livida L. (Diptera, Empididae). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 124: 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonhag, P.F. 1951. The skeleto-muscular mechanism of the head and abdomen of the adult horsefly (Diptera: Tabanidae). Transactions of the American Entomological Society 77: 131–202.Google Scholar
Brindle, A. 1964. Taxonomic Notes on the Larvae of British Diptera. No. 18. The Hemerodromiinae (Empididae). The Entomologist 97: 162–165.Google Scholar
Brindle, A. 1969. Taxonomic Notes on the Larvae of British Diptera. No. 27. A revised note on the subfamily Hemerodromiinae (Empididae). The Entomologist 102: 35–39.Google Scholar
Brindle, A. 1973. Taxonomic Notes on the Larvae of British Diptera. No. 28. The larva and pupa of Hydrodromia stagnalis (Haliday). The Entomologist 106: 249–252.Google Scholar
Brunetti, E. 1913. New Indian Empidae. Records of the Indian Museum 9: 11–45.Google Scholar
Brunetti, E. 1917. Diptera of the Simla District. Records of the Indian Museum 13: 59–101.Google Scholar
Caspers, N., and Wagner, R.. 1982. Emergenz-Untersuchungen an einem Mittelgebirgsbach bei Bonn. VII. Empididen- und Dolichopodiden-Emergenz 1976 (Insecta, Diptera, Brachycera). Archiv für Hydrobiologie 93(2): 209–237.Google Scholar
Chillcott, J.G. 1961. A revision of the genus Roederioides Coquillett (Diptera: Empididae). The Canadian Entomologist 93(6): 419–428.Google Scholar
Chillcott, J.G. 1966. A new species of Roederiodes Coquillett (Diptera: Empididae) from Utah, with additional notes on the genus. The Canadian Entomologist 98(3): 315–316.Google Scholar
Chvála, M. 1976. Swarming, mating and feeding habits in Empididae (Diptera), and their significance in evolution of the family. Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca 73: 353–366.Google Scholar
Chvála, M. 1983. The Empidoidea (Diptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. II. General Part. The families Hybotidae, Atelestidae and Microphoridae. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica 12: 1–279.Google Scholar
Chvála, M. 1987. Revision of Palearctic Microphoridae (Diptera) 2. Schistostoma Beck. Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca 84: 133–155.Google Scholar
Chvála, M. 1988. Revision of Palearctic Microphoridae (Diptera) 3. Parathalassiinae (Parathalassius Mik and Microphorella Becker). Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca 85: 352–372.Google Scholar
Chvála, M. 1991. First record of the relict Gondwanan genus Homalocnemis Philippi (Diptera: Empididae) from Namibia and the Afrotropical Region. Annals of the Natal Museum 32: 13–18.Google Scholar
Chvála, M., and Wagner, R.. 1989. Empididae. pp. 228–336 in Soós, A., and Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palearctic Diptera. Vol. 6 Therevidae - Empididae. Elsevier Science Publ., Amsterdam. 435 pp.Google Scholar
Colless, D.H., and McAlpine, D.K.. 1991. [Chapter] 39 Diptera. pp. 717–786 in Naumann, I.D. (Ed.), The Insects of Australia. Vol. 2. Melbourne University Press, Victoria. 543–1137 pp.Google Scholar
Collin, J.E. 1927. Notes on the Empididae (Diptera) with additions and corrections to the British list. Entomologist's Monthly Magazine 63: 2–29, 61–67, 93–98.Google Scholar
Collin, J.E. 1928. New Zealand Empididae based on material in the British Museum (Natural History). British Museum (Natural History), London. 110 pp.Google Scholar
Collin, J.E. 1933. Empididae. Diptera of Patagonia and South Chile 4: 334 pp.Google Scholar
Collin, J.E. 1941. Some Pipunculidae and Empididae from the Ussuri region on the far eastern border of the U.S.S.R. (Diptera). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London (B) 10: 218–248.Google Scholar
Collin, J.E. 1961. Empididae. In British Flies. Vol. 6. University Press, Cambridge. 782 pp.Google Scholar
Coquillett, D.W. 1901. Original descriptions of new Diptera. pp. 585–586in Needham, J.G., and Betten, C. (Eds.), Aquatic Insects in the Adirondacks. New York State Museum Bulletin 47: 383–608.Google Scholar
Coquillett, D.W. 1903. The genera of the Dipterous family Empididae, with notes and new species. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 5: 245–272.Google Scholar
Coquillett, D.W. 1910. New genera and species of North American Diptera. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 12: 124–131.Google Scholar
Costa, A. 1854. Frammenti di Entomologia Napolitana. Articolo 1. Nuovo specie di Ditteri. Annali scientifici. Giornale di scienze fisiche, matematiche, agricoltura. Napoli 1: 69–91.Google Scholar
Cranston, P.S., Gullan, P.J., and Taylor, R.W.. 1991. Principles and practice of systematics. pp. 109–124 in Naumann, I.D. (Ed.), The Insects of Australia. Vol. 1. Melbourne University Press, Victoria. pp. xviii + 1–542.Google Scholar
Crosskey, R.W., and White, G.B.. 1977. The Afrotropical Region. A recommended term in zoogeography. Journal of Natural History 11: 541–544.Google Scholar
Cumming, J.M. 1989. Book Review of Chvála, M. 1983. The Empidoidea (Diptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. II. General Part. The families Hybotidae, Atelestidae, and Microphoridae. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica, Volume 12. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 103: 620.Google Scholar
Cumming, J.M., and Cooper, B.E.. 1992. A revision of the Nearctic species of the tachydromiine fly genus Stilpon Loew (Diptera: Empidoidea). The Canadian Entomologist 124: 951–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, J.M., and Sinclair, B.J.. 1990. Fusion and confusion: Interpretation of male genitalic homologies in the Empidoidea (Diptera). Second International Congress of Dipterology, Bratislava, Abstract Volume, Third Supplement. p. 334.Google Scholar
Cumming, J.M., Sinclair, B.J., and Wood, D.M.. 1995. Homology and phylogenetic implications of male genitalia in Diptera - Eremoneura. Entomologica Scandinavica 26: 120–151.Google Scholar
Curran, C.H. 1934. The Families and Genera of North American Diptera. Ballou Press, New York, NY. 512 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, J. 1834. British entomology; being illustrations and descriptions of the genera of insects found in Great Britain and Ireland: containing coloured figures from nature of the most rare and beautiful species, and in many instances of the plants upon which they are found. 11: 482–529. Privately published, London.Google Scholar
Dale, J.C. 1878. History of Glanville's Wootton, Diptera: 239–293.Google Scholar
Delfinado, M.D., and Hardy, D.E. (Eds.). 1973. A Catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region. Vol. 1. The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 618 pp.Google Scholar
Downes, J.A., and Smith, S.M.. 1969. New or little known feeding habits in Empididae (Diptera). The Canadian Entomologist 101: 404–408.Google Scholar
Dyte, C.E. 1967. Some distinctions between the larvae and pupae of the Empididae and Dolichopodidae (Diptera). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society, London, (A) 42: 119–128.Google Scholar
Engel, E.O. 1918. Das Dipterengenus Atalanta Mg. (Clinocera ol.). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1918: 1–80, 197–268.Google Scholar
Engel, E.O. 1931. XV. Empididae (Dipt.) aus Java. Archiv für Hydrobiologie (Supplement) 8: 486–489.Google Scholar
Engel, E.O. 1939. 28. Empididae. In Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region 4: 105–152.Google Scholar
Engel, E.O. 1940. 28. Empididae. In Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region, 4: 153–192.Google Scholar
Evenhuis, N.L. 1989. Introduction. pp. 17–18 in Evenhuis, N.L. (Ed.), Catalog of the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanic Regions. Bishop Museum Special Publication 86: 1155 pp. Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Fallén, C.F. 1815. Empidiae Sveciae. Lundae. 16 pp.Google Scholar
Fallén, C.F. 1826. Supplementum Dipterorum Sveciae. Lundae. 16 pp.Google Scholar
Farr, T.H. 1953. Studies on North American Empididae. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 123 pp.Google Scholar
Farris, J.S. 1988. Hennig86, Version 1.5 Computer Software, Port Jefferson, NY. Privately published.Google Scholar
Frey, R. 1913. Zur Kenntnis der Dipterenfauna Finlands. II. Empididae. Acta Societatis Pro Fauna et Flora Fennica 37(10): 1–89.Google Scholar
Frey, R. 1940. Die Arthropodenfauna von Madiera nach den Ergebnissen der Reise von Prof. Dr. O. Lundblad Juli-August 1935. XIX Diptera Brachycera. (Exkl. Phoridae, Muscidae, Tachinidae). Arkiv för Zoologi 31A(20): 1–18.Google Scholar
Frey, R. 1945. Tiergeographische Studien über die Dipterenfauna der Azoren. I. Verzeichnis der bisher von den Azoren bekannten Dipteren. Societas Scientarum Fennica, Commentationes Biologicae 8(10): 1–114.Google Scholar
Garrett Jones, G.C. 1940. Empididae: A. - Hybotinae, Ocydromiinae, Clinocerinae and Hemerodromiinae. Ruwenzori Expedition 1934–1935 2(5): 257–323.Google Scholar
Gistl, J.N.F.X. von (or Gistel). 1848. Natureschichte des Thierreichs für höhere Schulen, Stuttgart. 216 pp.Google Scholar
Griffiths, G.C.D. 1980. Preface. pp. v–vii in Griffiths, G.C.D. (Ed.), Flies of the Nearctic Region. Vol. 1. Handbook, Part 1. History of Nearctic Dipterology. E. Schweizerbart'che Verlagsbuchandlung, Stuttgart. 62 pp.Google Scholar
Griffiths, G.C.D. 1983. Book review of Chvála, M. 1983. The Empidoidea (Diptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. II. The families Hybotidae, Atelestidae and Microphoridae. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica, Volume 12. Quaestiones Entomologicae 19(3/4): 483–485.Google Scholar
Hackman, W., and Väisänen, R.. 1985. The evolution and phylogenetic significance of the costal chaetotaxy in the Diptera. Annales Zoologici Fennici 22: 169–203.Google Scholar
Haliday, A.H. 1833. Catalogue of Diptera occurring about Holywood in Downshire. Entomological Magazine, London 1: 147–180.Google Scholar
Hardy, G.H. 1930. Australian Empididae. Australian Zoologist 6(3): 237–250.Google Scholar
Harper, P.P. 1980. Phenology and distribution of aquatic dance flies (Diptera: Empididae) in a Laurentian watershed. American Midland Naturalist 104: 110–117.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1970. Insektfossilien aus der unteren Kreide. II. Empididae (Diptera, Brachycera). Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde 214: 1–12.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1971. Insektfossilien aus der unteren Kreide. III. Empidiformia (“Microphorinae”) aus der unteren Kreide und aus dem Baltischen Bernstein; ein Vertreter der Cyclorrhapha aus der unteren Kreide. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde 232: 1–28.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1981. Insect Phylogeny. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 514 pp.Google Scholar
Hinton, H.E. 1950. Aquatic Diptera collected in the River Dove near Dovedale, Derbyshire. Journal of the Society for British Entomology 3: 203–206.Google Scholar
Horn, W., Kahle, I., Friese, G., and Gaedike, R.. 1990. Collectiones entomologicae. Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften, Berlin. 573 pp.Google Scholar
Horvat, B. 1993. Aquatic Empididae Fauna (Diptera) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Scopolia 28: 1–25.Google Scholar
Horvat, B. 1994 a (1993). Bergenstammia carniolica sp.n. (Diptera, Empididae: Clinocerinae) from Karavanke Mts. in Slovenia. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Biologica 37: 73–76.Google Scholar
Horvat, B. 1994 b (1993). Two new species of the genus Roederiodes Coquillent (Diptera, Empididae: Clinocerinae) from Sichuan (China). Acta Universitatis Carolinae Biologica 37: 81–86.Google Scholar
Horvat, B. 1994 c. Dolichocephala sinica sp.n. (Diptera, Empididae: Clinocerinae) from Sichuan (China). Aquatic Insects 16: 201–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1963. Opinion 678. The suppression under the plenary powers of the pamphlet published by Meigen, 1800. The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 20: 339–342.Google Scholar
Irwin, M.E. 1974. An account of the southern African genus Sciopolina with descriptions of new species (Diptera: Dolichopodidae: Sciapodinae). Annals of the Natal Museum 22: 221–264.Google Scholar
Joost, W. 1980. Wiedemannia (Philolutra) koeppeni sp.n. aus Sibirien (Diptera, Empididae). Reichenbachia 18(13): 89–91.Google Scholar
Joost, W. 1981 a. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Hemerodromiinae des Kaukasus (1) (Diptera, Empididae). Reichenbachia 19 (31): 183–191.Google Scholar
Joost, W. 1981 b. Dolichocephala monae sp.n. aus Armenien (UdSSR) (Diptera, Empididae). Reichenbachia 19 (32): 193–194.Google Scholar
Joost, W. 1982. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Hemerodromiinae Bulgariens (Insecta, Diptera, Empididae). Faunistische Abhandlungen 9 (11): 121–124.Google Scholar
Joost, W. 1984. Wiedemannia (Philolutra) mauersbergeri n.sp. aus der Mongolei (Diptera, Empididae). Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin 60(1): 123–126.Google Scholar
Joost, W. 1985. Dolichocephala bellstedti n.sp. aus Thüringen (DDR) (Diptera, Empididae). Entomologische Nachrichten und Berichte 29(6): 277–278.Google Scholar
Joost, W. 1990. Dolichocephala meyi sp.n. aus Tadshikistan (UdSSR) (Insecta, Diptera: Empididae). Reichenbachia 28(15): 77–78.Google Scholar
Kelsey, L.P. 1969. A revision of the Scenopinidae (Diptera) of the World. United States National Museum Bulletin 277: 1–336.Google Scholar
Kertész, K. 1909. Catalogus Dipterorum hucusque descriptorum. Volumen VI. Empididae, Dolichopodidae, Musidoridae. Museum Nationale Hungaricum, Budapestini (=Budapest). 362 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, N.P. 1984. Studies on the morphology and systematics of primitive Lepidoptera (Insecta). Steenstrupia 10(5): 141–191.Google Scholar
Krystoph, H. 1961. Vergleichend-morphologische Untersuchungen an den Mundteilen bei Empididen (Diptera). Beiträge zur Entomologie 11(7/8): 824–872.Google Scholar
Landry, B., and Harper, P.P.. 1985. The aquatic dance fly fauna of a subarctic river system in Québec, with the description of a new species of Hemerodromia (Diptera: Empididae). The Canadian Entomologist 117: 1379–1386.Google Scholar
Laurence, B.R. 1953. On the feeding habits of Clinocera (Wiedemannia) bistigma Curtis (Diptera: Empididae). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society, London (A) 28: 139–144.Google Scholar
Lindegaard, C., and Thorup, J.. 1975. The invertebrate fauna of the moss carpet in the Danish spring Ravnkilde and its seasonal, vertical, and horizontal distribution. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 75: 109–139.Google Scholar
Lobanov, A.M. 1985. Possibilities of using the structural features of the ovipositor in the systematics of Brachycera-Orthorrhapha. pp. 70–74 in Skarlato, O.A. (Ed.), Systematics of Diptera (Insecta) Ecological and Morphological Principles. Amerind Publ. Co., New Delhi. 185 pp. [Translated from Zoologicheskii Institut An SSSR Publishers, Leningrad (1979).]Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1858 a. Zehn neue Dipteren. Wiener Entomologische Monatschrift 2: 7–15.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1858 b. Ueber die Arten der Gattung Clinocera Meig. Wiener Entomologische Monatschrift 2: 238–253 and 257–262.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1858 c. Noch eine neue Clinocera. Wiener Entomologische Monatschrift 2: 386–387.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1858 d. Synamphotera pallida, nov. sp. et gen. Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Naturwissenschaft 11: 453–456.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1860. Diptera americana ab Osten-Sackenio collecta. Wiener Entomologische Monatschrift 4: 79–84.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1861. Beschreibung einiger neuer europäischen Dipteren. Wiener Entomologische Monatschrift 5: 348–353.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1862. Diptera Americae septentrionalis indigena. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift 6: 185–232.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1864. Clinocera bivittata nov. sp. Wiener Entomologische Monatschrift 8: 258–260.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1869. Beschreibungen europäischer Dipteren. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europäischen zweiflügeligen Insecten, von Johann Wilhelm Meigen. Halle. 1: 1–310.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1873. Diptera nova, in Pannonia inferiori et in confinibus Daciae regionsibus a Ferd. Kowarzio capta. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift 17: 33–52.Google Scholar
Loew, H. 1876. Beschreibungen neuer amerikanischer Dipteren. Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Naturwissenschaft 48: 317–340.Google Scholar
MacDonald, J.F. 1993. Review of the genus Chelipoda Macquart of America north of Mexico (Diptera: Empididae; Hemerodromiinae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 95: 327–350.Google Scholar
Macquart, J. 1823. Monographie des Insectes Diptères de la famille des Empides, observés dans le nord-ouest de la France. Recueil des Travaux de la Société d'Amateurs des Sciences, de l'Agriculture et des Arts à Lille 1819/1822: 137–165.Google Scholar
Macquart, J. 1827. Insectes diptères du nord de la France. Platypézines, dolichopodes, empides, hybotides. Lille. 159 pp.Google Scholar
Macquart, J. 1835. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Diptères. Tome deuxième. Ouvrage accompagné de planches. Roret, Paris. 703 or 710 pp.Google Scholar
Mandaron, P. 1964. Un nouveau Diptère récolté en Dauphiné Wiedemannia (Chamaedipsia) aequilobata n.sp. Travaux du Laboratoire d'Hydrobiologie et de Pisciculture de l'Université de Grenoble 56: 81–84.Google Scholar
McAlpine, J.F. 1981. Morphology and terminology—Adults [Chapter] 2. pp. 9–63 in McAlpine, J.F. et al. , (Coords.), Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 1. Agriculture Canada Monograph 27: 1–674.Google Scholar
Meigen, J.W. 1800. Nouvelle classification des mouches à deux ailes (Diptera L.) d'après un plan tout nouveau. Perronneau, Paris. 40 pp.Google Scholar
Meigen, J.W. 1803. Versuch einer neuen Gattungseintheilung der europäischen zweiflügeligen Insekten. Magazin für Insektenkunde 2: 259–281.Google Scholar
Meigen, J.W. 1804. Klassifikazion und Beschreibung der europäischen zweiflügeligen Insecten (Diptera Linn.). Erster Band. Abt.I. xxviii + 152 pp. Abt.II. vi + pp. 153–314. Reichard, Braunschweig.Google Scholar
Melander, A.L. 1902. A monograph of the American Empididae. Part 1. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 28: 195–368.Google Scholar
Melander, A.L. 1928 (1927). Diptera, Fam. Empididae. In Wytsman, P. (Ed.), Genera Insectorum. Fasc. 185. Louis Desmet-Verteneuil, Bruxelles. 434 pp.Google Scholar
Melander, A.L. 1965. Family Empididae (Empidae, Hybotidae). pp. 446–481 in Stone, A. et al. , (Eds.), A Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 276: 1–1696.Google Scholar
Mik, J. 1869. Beiträge zur Dipteren-Fauna Oesterreichs. Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-königlichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft 19: 19–36.Google Scholar
Mik, J. 1880. Beschreibung neuer Dipteren. I. Eilf neue europäische Clinocera-Arten. Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-königlichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft 30: 347–358.Google Scholar
Mik, J. 1881. Dipterologische Mittheilungen, II. V. Die Gattung Clinocera Meig. Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-königlichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft 31: 320–327, 330.Google Scholar
Mik, J. 1886. Eine neue Dipteren-Art aus Süd-Tirol. Wiener Entomologische Zeitung 5: 22–24.Google Scholar
Mik, J. 1887. Diagnosen neuer Dipteren. Wiener Entomologische Zeitung 6: 161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mik, J. 1889 a. Eine neue schweizerische Art aus der alten Gattung Clinocera Meig. (Ein dipterologischer Beitrag.). Wiener Entomologische Zeitung 8: 71–72.Google Scholar
Mik, J. 1889 b. Eine neue, aus den Beskiden stammende Art der alten Gattung Clinocera Meig. Wiener Entomologische Zeitung 8: 150–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. 1923. Material for a Monograph of the Diptera fauna of New Zealand: Part III— Family Empididae. Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute 54: 437–464.Google Scholar
Needham, J.G., and Betten, C.. 1901. Aquatic insects in the Adirondacks. New York State Museum Bulletin 47: 383–608.Google Scholar
Niesiolowski, S. 1987. Wiedemannia jazdzewskii sp.n. and Hemerodromia mazoviensis sp.n., new species of Empididae (Diptera, Brachycera) from Poland. Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne 57: 519–522.Google Scholar
Niesiolowski, S. 1988. Wiedemannia escheri (Zetterstedt, 1838) and W. hirtiloba (Speiser, 1924), new synonyms of W. zetterstedti (Fallén, 1826). Aquatic Insects 10: 185–187.Google Scholar
Niesiolowski, S. 1992 a (1991). Notes on the synonyms in genera Wiedemannia and Clinocera (Diptera, Empididae, Clinocerinae). Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne 61(3–4): 131–136.Google Scholar
Niesiolowski, S. 1992 b. Empididae Aquatica Wodne wujkowate (Insecta: Diptera). Fauna Polski 14: 1–128.Google Scholar
Nixon, K.C. 1992. Clados Version 1.2 Computer Software, L.H. Bailey Hortorium, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Nowicki, M. 1868. Beschreibung neuer Dipteren. Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereins in Brünn 6: 70–97.Google Scholar
O'Hara, J.E. 1983 (1982). Classification, phylogeny and zoogeography of the North American species of Siphona Meigen (Diptera: Tachinidae). Quaestiones Entomologicae 18: 261–380.Google Scholar
Oldenberg, L. 1910. Einige europäische Empididen. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 8: 344–352.Google Scholar
Oldenberg, L. 1915 (1914). Veränderlichkeit der Beinfärbung der Atalanta (Clinocera). Archiv für Naturgeschichte 80A(9): 92.Google Scholar
Oldenberg, L. 1924. Die Empididen v. Rosers in Stuttgart (Dipt.). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 1924: 317–322.Google Scholar
Peterson, B.V. 1960. Notes on some natural enemies of Utah black flies (Diptera: Simuliidae). The Canadian Entomologist 92: 260–274.Google Scholar
Peterson, B.V., and Davies, D.M.. 1960. Observations on some insect predators of black flies (Diptera: Simuliidae) of Algonquin Park, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology 38: 9–18.Google Scholar
Philippi, R.A. 1865. Aufzählung der chilenischen Dipteren. Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-königlichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft 15: 595–782.Google Scholar
Plant, A.R. 1991. A revision of the genus Ceratomerus (Diptera: Empididae: Ceratomerinae) of New Zealand. Journal of Natural History 25: 1313–1330.Google Scholar
Pusch, M.H.E., and Wagner, R.. 1993. Bergenstammia aurinae sp.n., a new aquatic empidid (Diptera) from the Eastern Alps. Aquatic Insects 15: 209–212.Google Scholar
Robert, C. 1836. Description d'un Diptère nouveau du genre Paramesia. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 5: 537–538.Google Scholar
Robinson, H., and Vockeroth, J.R.. 1981. Dolichopodidae [Chapter] 48. pp. 625–639 in McAlpine, J.F. et al. , (Coords.), Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 1. Agriculture Canada Monograph 27: 1–674.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. 1981. Mating in Wiedemannia (Diptera: Empididae). Journal of Natural History 15: 1013–1018.Google Scholar
Rondani, C. 1856. Dipterologiae Italicae Prodromus. Vol. 1. Genera italica ordinis Dipterorum ordinatim disposita et distincta et in familias et stirpes aggregata. A. Stoschi, Parmae (= Parma). 226 + [2]pp.Google Scholar
Saigusa, T. 1963 a. The genus Proclinopyga, a Nearctic element of Empididae, in Japan (Diptera, Empididae). Sieboldia 3(1): 91–96.Google Scholar
Saigusa, T. 1963 b. A new species of the genus Roederioides Coquillett from Japan (Diptera, Empididae). Sieboldia 3(1): 187–192.Google Scholar
Saigusa, T. 1965. Two new species of Clinocerinae from Japan (Diptera, Empididae). Kontyû 33(1): 53–57.Google Scholar
Saigusa, T. 1986. New genera of Empididae (Diptera) from eastern Asia. Sieboldia 5(1): 1–96.Google Scholar
Schiner, J.R. 1862. Fauna Austriaca. Die Fliegen (Diptera), 1. Wien. LXXX + 672 pp.Google Scholar
Scholz, H. 1851. Beiträge zur Kunde der sclesischen Zweiflügler. (Fortsetzung). Zeitschrift für Entomologie Breslau 5 (19): 41–60.Google Scholar
Séguy, E. 1941. Récoltes de R. Paulian et A. Villiers dans le haut Atlas marocain, 1938 (XVIIe note). Diptères. Revue de Françaises d'Entomologie 8: 25–33 and 82–88.Google Scholar
Sinclair, B.J. 1992. A phylogenetic interpretation of the Brachycera (Diptera) based on the larval mandible and associated mouthpart structures. Systematic Entomology 17: 233–252.Google Scholar
Sinclair, B.J. 1994. Revision of the Nearctic species of Trichoclinocera Collin (Diptera: Empididae; Clinocerinae). The Canadian Entomologist 126: 1007–1059.Google Scholar
Sinclair, B.J., and Cumming, J.M.. 1994. Phylogenetic relationships within the Empidoidea (Diptera). Third International Congress of Dipterology Abstract Volume, Guelph. pp. 200–201.Google Scholar
Sinclair, B.J., Cumming, J.M., and Wood, D.M.. 1994 (1993). Homology and phylogenetic implications of male genitalia in Diptera – Lower Brachycera. Entomologica Scandinavica 24: 407–423.Google Scholar
Sinclair, B.J., and Marshall, S.A.. 1987 (1986). The madicolous fauna in southern Ontario. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario 117: 9–14.Google Scholar
Smith, K.G.V. 1961. A new species of Asymphyloptera Collin (Dipt., Empididae, Clinocerinae) from Australia. Entomologist's Monthly Magazine 96: 245.Google Scholar
Smith, K.G.V. 1962. Studies on the Brazilian Empididae. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society, London 114: 195–266.Google Scholar
Smith, K.G.V. 1964. Insects of Campbell Island. Diptera: Empididae. Pacific Insects Monograph 7: 325–328.Google Scholar
Smith, K.G.V. 1965. Diptera from Nepal. Empididae. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology 17: 61–112.Google Scholar
Smith, K.G.V. 1967. Diptera (Brachycera): Empididae. South African Animal Life 13: 217–233.Google Scholar
Smith, K.G.V. 1969. The Empididae of southern Africa (Diptera). Annals of the Natal Museum 19: 1–342.Google Scholar
Smith, K.G.V. 1989. 43. Family Empididae. pp. 382–392 in Evenhuis, N.L. (Ed.), Catalog of the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanic Regions. Bishop Museum Special Publication 86: 1155 pp. Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Soós, A., and Papp, L. (Eds.). 1984. Catalogue of Palearctic Diptera. Vol. 9 Micropezidae-Agromyzidae. Elsevier Science Publ., Amsterdam. 460 pp.Google Scholar
Speiser, P.G.E. 1924. Vorarbeiten zu einer Dipterenfauna der Provinz Ostpreussen. Schriften der Physikalisch-ökonomischen Gesellschaft zu Königsberg i 64: 7–18.Google Scholar
Steyskal, G.C. 1969. New species of Empididae of the genera Empis, Hilara, and Hormopeza from Georgia, with a synopsis of the North American species of Hormopeza. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 62: 292–299.Google Scholar
Steyskal, G.C., and Knutson, L.V.. 1981. Empididae [Chapter] 47. pp. 607–624 in McAlpine, J.F. et al. , (Coords.), Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 1. Agriculture Canada Monograph 27: 1–674.Google Scholar
Strobl, G. 1893. Die Dipteren von Steiermark. I. Theil. Mitteilungen des Naterwissenschaftlichen Vereins für Steiermark 29(1892): 1–199.Google Scholar
Strobl, G. 1898. Fauna diptera Bosne, Hercegovine i Dalmacie. Glasnik Zemaljiskog Museja u Bosni i Hercegovini 10: 387–466 and 561–616.Google Scholar
Tréhen, P. 1969. Description des stades préimaginaux et données sur la biologie de Phyllodromia melanocephala Fabricius, 1794 (Diptères-Empididae). Revue d'Ecologie et de Biologie du Sol 6: 41–52.Google Scholar
Tucker, E.S. 1907. Some results of desultory collecting of insects in Kansas and Colorado. The Kansas University Science Bulletin 4: 51–112.Google Scholar
Tuomikoski, R. 1960. Mitteilungen über die Empididen (Dipt.) Finnlands VII. Die Gattung Hormopeza Zett. Annales Entomologici Fennici 26: 99–107.Google Scholar
Tuomikoski, R. 1966. The Ocydromiinae group of subfamilies (Diptera, Empididae). Annales Entomologici Fennici 32: 282–294.Google Scholar
Ulrich, H. 1971. Zur Skelett- und Muskelanatomie des Thorax der Dolichopodiden und Empididen (Diptera). Veröffentlichungen der Zoologischen Staatssammlung München 15: 1–44.Google Scholar
Ulrich, H. 1975. Das Hypopygium von Chelifera precabunda Collin (Diptera, Empididae). Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 26: 264–279.Google Scholar
Ulrich, H. 1984. Skelett und Muskulatur des Thorax von Microphor holosericeus (Meigen) (Diptera, Empidoidea). Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 35: 351–398.Google Scholar
Ulrich, H. 1991. Two new genera of parathalassiine-like flies from South Africa (Diptera, Empidoidea). Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 42: 187–216.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1951 a (1949–1950). Contribution à l'étude des Empididae Atalantinae des Alpes fraçaises. Travaux du Laboratoire d'Hydrobiologie et de Pisciculture de l'Université de Grenoble 41–42: 49–57.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1951 b. Premières récoltes d'Empididae Atalantinae en Algérie. Congrès de l'Association française pour l'avancement des sciences, Tunis, 1951 4: 1–3.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1952 a (1951). Un Empidide destructeur de simulies. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France 76: 371–379.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1952 b. Les larves hygropétriques et les nymphes de quelques Empididae Atalantinae (Diptères). Travaux du Laboratoire d'Hydrobiologie et de Pisciculture de l'Université de Grenoble 43–44: 39–46.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1952 c. Quelques Empididae nouveaux pour l'Algérie [Diptera]. Revue de Françaises d'Entomologie 19(1): 64–67.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1953 a (1952). Kowarzia barbatula Mik et Dolichocephala ocellata Costa, deux Empidides a larves hygropétriques (Diptères). Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France 77: 286–291. [Though the journal cover bears the date 1952, the issue containing this article was published in 1953.]Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1953 b. Hemerodromia seguyi, nouvel empidide d'Algérie destructeur de simulies. Hydrobiologica 5: 180–188.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1953 c. Quelques Empididae de France et d'Algérie. Encyclopédie Entomologique (C) 11: 57–63.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1956 a. Recherches sur la faune madicole (hygropétrique s.l.) de France, de Corse et d'Afrique du Nord. Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Série A, Zoologie 11: 1–258.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1956 b. Quelques Wiedemannia de France nouveaux ou peu connus [Diptera Empididae]. L'Entomologiste 12: 11–16.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1957 (1956). Contribution à l'étude des Diptères Empididae du Grand-Atlas marocain. I. Hemerodromiinae et Atalantinae. Bulletin de la Société des Sciences naturelles et physiques du Maroc 36: 61–71.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1960 a. Quelques Empididae Atalantinae. Contribution à l'étude de leur habitat et de leurs adaptations. Verhandlungen XI Internationaler Kongress für Entomologie 1: 193–197.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1960 b. Quelques Empididae Atalantinae des monts des Appalaches [Dipt.]. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 65: 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1960 c. Quelques Empididae Atalantinae d'Asie russe [Dipt.]. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 65: 170–186.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1964. On some empidid flies of the Azores and Madeira. Boletim do Museu Municipal do Funchal 18 (67): 61–67.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1965 (1964). Revision des Empididae Hemerodromiinae de France, d'Espagne et d'Afrique du Nord [Dipt.]. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 133: 143–173.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1967 a. La répartition des Wiedemannia dans les cours d'eau et leur utilisation comme indicateurs de zones écologiques [Diptera, Empididae]. Annales de Limnologie 3(2): 267–293.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1967 b. Empididae. pp. 401–404 in Illies, J. (Ed.), Limnofauna Europaea. Stuttgart. 474 pp.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1968 a. Quelques Empididae Hemerodromiinae des Pyrénées [Diptera]. Annales de Limnologie 4(1): 85–93.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1968 b. Quelques Empididae Hemerodromiinae de Pologne (Diptera). Annales Zoologici (Polska Akademia Nauk) 26: 1–5.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1973. Quelques Insectes Diptères, à larves aquatiques, du parc de la Vanoise. Travaux Scientifiques du Parc National de la Vanoise 3: 133–165.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1978. Empididae. pp. 465–469 in Illies, J. (Ed.), Limnofauna Europaea. Stuttgart. 532 pp.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F. 1981. Diptères Empididae Hemerodromiinae nouveaux ou peu connus de la région paléarctique (première partie). Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 32: 351–408.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F., and Chvála, M.. 1973. Empididae Hemerodromiinae from Spain (Insects, Diptera). Steenstrupia 3(6): 57–64.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F., and Vinçon, G.. 1987 (1986). Quelques Clinocerini (Diptera, Empididae, Hemerodromiinae) nouveaux ou mal connus des Pyrénées. Annales de Limnologie 22(3): 261–275.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F., and Wagner, R.. 1989. Notes on Empididae (5), Bergenstammia pulla sp.n. Aquatic Insects 11: 200.Google Scholar
Vaillant, F., and Wagner, R.. 1990. Notes on Empididae (6), Wiedemannia graeca sp.n. Aquatic Insects 12: 95–96.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. 1980. Die Dipterenemergenz am Breitennbach (1969–1973). Spixiana 3(2): 167–177.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. 1981. Über einige Hemerodromiinae vom Balkan und aus der Ägäis (Diptera, Empididae). Spixiana 4(3): 297–304.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. 1982 a. Über einige Psychodiden und aquatische Empididen aus dem mittleren Osten. Spixiana 5(1): 15–17.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. 1982 b. Über einige Empididae (Clinoceratinae) aus den Alpen und aus Italien (Diptera, Empididae). Entomofauna 3 (15): 217–222.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. 1982 c. Dipteren-Emergenz zweier Lunzer Bäche 1972–1974 nebst Beschreibung einer neuen Empidide (Diptera). Archiv für Hydrobiologie 95(1/4): 491–506.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. 1983. Aquatische Empididen (Diptera) aus hessischen Mittelgebirgen und angrenzenden Gebieten. Beiträge zur Naturkunde in Osthessen 19: 135–146.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. 1984 a. Two new species of Mediterranean Empididae (Diptera). Bollettino della Società Entomologica Italiana, Genova 116(4–7): 121–123.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. 1984 b. Neue und seltene paläarktische Tanzfliegen (Diptera, Empididae). Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca 81: 458–464.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. 1985 a. A revision of the genus Heleodromia (Diptera: Empididae) in Europe. Aquatic Insects 7: 33–43.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. 1985 b. Notes on Empididae (4). New replacement names in Empididae. Aquatic Insects 7: 86.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. 1990. Neue Wiedemannia-Arten aus der rhynchops-Gruppe (Diptera, Empididae, Clinocerinae). Entomofauna 11 (13): 229–237.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. 1993. Notes on Empididae (8), Bergenstammia albanica sp.n., a new aquatic empidid (Diptera) from southeast Europe. Aquatic Insects 15: 39–40.Google Scholar
Wagner, R., and Andersen, T.. 1995. New Empididae (Diptera) from the West Usambara Mts, NE Tanzania. Aquatic Insects 17: 25–35.Google Scholar
Wagner, R., and Horvat, B.. 1993. The genus Roederiodes Coquillett, 1901 (Diptera, Empididae: Clinocerinae) in Europe, with descriptions of four new species. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 44: 33–40.Google Scholar
Wagner, R., and Stauder, A.. 1991. The Clinocerinae (Diptera, Empididae) from Madeira, the Canary Islands and the Azores. Bocagiana Museu Municipal do Funchal 150: 13 pp.Google Scholar
Wahlberg, P.F. 1844. Nya Diptera från Norrbotten och Luleå Lappmark. Öfversigt af K Vetenskapsakademiens förhandlingar 1: 106–110.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1851. Diptera. In Insecta Britannica. Vol. 1. Reeve and Benham, London. 314 pp., 10 pls.Google Scholar
Waters, S.B. 1989. A Cretaceous dance fly (Diptera: Empididae) from Botswana. Systematic Entomology 14: 233–241.Google Scholar
Wiegmann, B.M., Mitter, C., and Thompson, F.C.. 1993. Evolutionary origin of the Cyclorrhapha (Diptera): Tests of alternative morphological hypotheses. Cladistics 9: 41–81.Google Scholar
Wilder, D.D. 1981 a. A review of the genus Roederiodes Coquillett with the description of a new species (Diptera: Empididae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 57: 415–421.Google Scholar
Wilder, D.D. 1981 b. A revision of the genus Oreothalia Melander (Diptera: Empididae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 83: 461–471.Google Scholar
Wilder, D.D. 1982. Two new Nearctic clinocerine genera (Diptera: Empididae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Washington 10: 166–178.Google Scholar
Wiley, E.O. 1981. Phylogenetics. The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 439 pp.Google Scholar
Wirth, W.W., and Stone, A.. 1956. Aquatic Diptera. pp. 372–482 in Usinger, R.L. (Ed.), Aquatic Insects of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 508 pp.Google Scholar
Woodley, N.E. 1989. Phylogeny and classification of the “Orthorrhaphous” Brachycera [Chapter] 115. pp. 1371–1395 in McAlpine, J.F., and Wood, D.M. (Coords.), Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Vol. 3. Agriculture Canada Monograph 32: 1333–1581.Google Scholar
Zetterstedt, J.W. 1833. Resa genom Umea Lappmarker i Vesterbottens Län, förrättad ar 1832. Orebro, Sweden. 398 pp.Google Scholar
Zetterstedt, J.W. 1837. Conspectus familiarum, generum et specierum Dipterorum, in Fauna Insectorum Lapponica descriptorum. Isis (Oken's) 1837: 28–67.Google Scholar
Zetterstedt, J.W. 1838. Sectio tertia. Diptera. Dipterologis scandinaviae. amicis et popilaribus carissimus. pp. 477–868 in Insecta Lapponica Lipsiae (= Leipzig). vi + 1140 pp.Google Scholar
Zetterstedt, J.W. 1842. Diptera Scandinaviae deposita et descripta. Lundae (Lund) 1: xvi + 1–440.Google Scholar
Zetterstedt, J.W. 1849. Diptera Scandinaviae deposita et descripta. Lundae (Lund) 8: 2935–3366.Google Scholar