78 R. W. CROSSKEY 
of these Guérin-Méneville (1843 : 264) concluded that Robineau-Desvoidy was 
dealing with a different species from Fabricius (though as he had not, it seems certain, 
seen the specimens of either author his conclusion was based on little more than 
guesswork). Following upon his conclusion, Guérin-Méneville (op. cit. : 264, 269) 
described the species supposedly misidentified by Robineau-Desvoidy as Rutilia 
desvoidy Guérin-Méneville, and subsequent references to the Rutiliini contain various 
citations of the type-species of Rutilia as vivipara or as desvoidy1. I have earlier 
(Crosskey, 1967 : 26) shown that none of these citations were valid for type-fixation, 
either because the fixation was made ambiguously, or the name cited was not that 
of a nominal species or was that of a species not originally included in Rutilia, and I 
therefore published a designation of Tachina vivipara Fabricius as type-species of 
Rutilia. Inthe present revisionary work it is now most desirable to establish beyond 
any future doubt the identity of vivipara Fabricius, as this species is the nomen- 
clatorial pivot of the whole Rutiliini, and to show that desvoidy: Guérin-Méneville 
is in reality a junior synonym of vivipara Fabricius. 
The original description of vivipara might not be readily accessible to Australian 
dipterists likely to work on the Rutiliini, and I therefore quote it here: Tachina 
vivipara 
‘T. pilosa grisea, abdomine ferrugineo, scutello cupreo. 
Habitat in Insulis maris pacifici carnes consumens vivipara. Dom. Billardiere. 
Magna. Caput griseum, ore albido. Thorax pilosus, griseus, fusco lineatus. 
Scutellum cupreum, nitidum. Abdomen pilis atris, rigidis hirtum, 
subferrugineum, segmentorum marginibus nigris. Pedes pallide testacei.’ 
All later workers have assumed, and I agree with this assumption, that the 
provenance of Fabricius’ specimen was almost certainly Australia, though recorded 
as ‘Insulis maris pacifici’; localities of origin were often very imprecisely recorded at 
the time when Fabricius was writing, and although some Rutilia are now known 
from the Pacific islands it cannot be said that Fabricius’ description fits any of them 
at all well. On the other hand, for such an early work, it is an extremely good 
description of a common Rutilia species which occurs throughout eastern Australia 
from Cape York to Tasmania and which has been commonly identified as vivipara 
for many years. This species has entirely reddish yellow legs, a ferruginous colour 
often with rather coppery scutellum, conspicuous blackish brown thoracic vittae, 
blackish hind margins to the abdominal segments, and exceptionally strong rather 
spiniform abdominal bristling, and is therefore a virtually perfect match with 
Fabricius’ statements (respectively “‘pedes pallide testacei’, ‘abdomine ferrugineo’, 
‘scutellum cupreum, nitidum’, ‘thorax . . . fusco lineatus’, “abdomen . . . segmen- 
torum marginibus nigris’, and ‘rigidis hirtum’). There is only one large (Fabricius’ 
‘magna’) species of Rutilia with all pale legs, strongly vittate thorax, dark reddish 
brown colouring, and such strongly bristled abdomen, and it is to this species that 
Fabricius’ name vivipara unquestionably applies and it is from this species that a 
neotype for vivipara has been designated elsewhere in this paper (see p. 126). 
With the identity of vivipara Fabricius objectively pinned down by neotype it is 
now possible to determine whether desvoidyi Guérin-Méneville is distinct from vivi- 
para or not. One of three original syntypes of desvoidyi still exists in the Paris 
