Ephydroidea
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.3853/j.0067-1975.63.2011.1585 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C1878D-A632-9141-FE8F-FBCA59F5964A |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Ephydroidea |
status |
|
The Ephydroidea
The following families of this superfamily are discussed below: Campichoetidae , Diastatidae , Curtonotidae , Drosophilidae , Ephydridae .
Some features and variation in the ephydroid antenna have been previously described, e.g., by Hennig (1971), and, in more detail, by Grimaldi (1990). Features common to all families include the great dorsal development of the pedicellar rim to form a pair of lobes separated by a narrow dorsal cleft (seam or slit), the adjacent margins of the two lobes usually appressed so that the cleft may not be obvious at low magnification, and the very asymmetrical conus. Typical caesti (separate from the annular ridge) are absent. The distal articular surface is particularly concave on its dorsolateral quarter ( Fig. 73 View Figures 73–75 ), or may abruptly give way to a deep cup containing the button and the sometimes much reduced conus ( Fig. 80 View Figures 79–83 ). Several taxa show evidence of abrasive action using the dorsomedial surface of segment 2 (see p. 163).
Some of the apomorphies listed by J. McAlpine (1989: 1486) appear not to indicate accurately the groundplan condition for the superfamily, or are present in possible outgroups.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.