Lygistorrhinidae, Edwards, 1925

Oliveira, Sarah S., Afiune, Giovana P. S., Schelesky-Prado, Daniel de C., Maia, Valéria C., Amorim, Dalton de S. & Falaschi, Rafaela L., 2024, Taxonomic Catalog of the Brazilian Fauna: Bibionomorpha (Diptera) diversity and distribution, Zoologia (e 23103) 41, pp. 1-17 : 5-6

Lygistorrhinidae

The Neotropical Lygistorrhinidae have 14 described species known in the genus Lygistorrhina Skuse, 1890 mainly from Brazil, French Guiana, and Mexico ( Oliveira and Amorim 2012a, Grund 2012, Huerta et al. 2019, Blagoderov and Pollet 2020). Globally, there are 51 species of Lygistorrhinidae in 16 genera, of which 16 are known as fossils in nine extinct genera and 35 are extant species in eight genera ( Blagoderov and Pollet 2020). The first Brazilian species were described by Edwards ( L.brasiliensis Edwards, 1932 ) and Lane ( L. barretoi Lane, 1947 and L. edwardsi Lane, 1947 ) from the states of Rio de Janeiro, Goiás, and São Paulo, respectively. Other Neotropical species are known from Mexico, Trinidad, St. Vincent, and French Guiana ( Oliveira and Amorim 2012a, Grund 2012, Huerta et al. 2019, Blagoderov and Pollet 2020). The first version of the Neotropical catalog of the family ( Papavero 1977b) had seven valid species, while the second version ( Oliveira and Amorim 2012a) recorded nine species—with an increase of five species in the last decade ( Grund 2012, Huerta et al. 2019, Blagoderov and Pollet 2020).

Although their biology is poorly known, the lygistorrhinids are flower visitors, with elongated mouthparts being used for feeding on nectar and pollen being recorded attached to their abdomen ( Bertone 2018). The immature stages and larval habitat are unknown so far ( Oliveira and Amorim 2012a, Blagoderov and Pollet 2020). Lygistorrhinidae is clearly monophyletic and its position found recent controversies in the literature (see above). A phylogenetic study of the genus Lygistorrhina is still pending, and the subgenus L. ( Lygistorrhina ) Skuse, 1890 may not represent a monophyletic group, L. (Probolaeus) Williston, 1896 probably being a small subclade within the genus ( Oliveira and Amorim 2012a). For the time being, we abandon L. (Probolaeus) as a subgenus.