Pipunculus Latreille, 1802, Latreille, 1802

Kehlmaier, Christian, 2008, Finnish Pipunculidae (Diptera) studies Part I: Taxonomic notes on Cephalops Fallén, 1810, Pipunculus Latreille, 1802 and Tomosvaryella Aczél, 1939, Zootaxa 1672, pp. 1-42: 4

publication ID

http://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.180216

persistent identifier


treatment provided by


scientific name

Pipunculus Latreille, 1802


Pipunculus Latreille, 1802  

The latest updates for the European Pipunculus   fauna that includes study of type specimens are the works by Kozánek (1981 a, b). His keys are likely to be the ones most commonly used but have become outdated. Between 1990 and 1993, Morakote & Hirashima (1990) and Kuznetzov (1990, 1991, 1993 a) described 32 Western and Eastern Palaearctic Pipunculus   species, of which 20 are based on females and six on males only. This and the lack of proper differential diagnoses or identification keys, make the papers by the latter author inadequate for identification purposes. Dunk (1997) presents a key for the Central European fauna, largely following Kozánek’s works. Skevington & Marshall (1998) revised the Nearctic Pipunculus   fauna, which also had nomenclatorial impact on the European one. Földvári & Kozánek (2001) provide additional taxonomic information on two Pipunculus   taxa. The scattered taxonomic information and the fact that several unplaceable “forms” of Pipunculus   were encountered while studying Pipunculidae   originating from Finland and other countries made it necessary to reassess the species’ limits in use by studying the available type specimens. Additionally, molecular work on the genus has been started and will be presented in a broader context elsewhere. In the following, there is given a brief characterisation of each species present in Europe followed by additional annotations where necessary and an identification key. Concerning variation of certain morphological features like degree of pollinosity, coloration of legs or postpronotal lobe and length of third costal segment compared to length of fourth costal segment (hereafter referred to as LTC and LFC), chances are that a larger intraspecific variability than indicated may occur. The utility of these and other morphological characters have been discussed by Skevington & Marshall (1998) in detail.