

REVISIONARY CLASSIFICATION OF RUTILIINI 79 
Museum and is herein designated as lectotype (see p. 119); the lectotype is in rather 
poor condition (some mould, holes in body, a mid and a fore leg missing) but it 
shows the bare parafacials, three postalar setae, haired suprasquamal ridge, entirely 
reddish yellow legs, brown abdomen with darkened hind margins to the segments, 
yellowish pleural hair, and same form of chaetotaxy, and is considered undoubtedly 
conspecific with the neotype of vivipara. Hence desvoidyi Guérin-Méneville is here 
placed as a new synonym of vivipara Fabricius, and it is concluded that vivipara of 
Robineau-Desvoidy (1830) (=desvoidyi according to Guérin-Méneville) is actually 
therefore the same species as vivipara Fabricius and not a misidentification as 
Guérin-Méneville supposed. Consequently there is no longer any confusion over the 
type-species of Rutilia: Tachina vivipara Fabricius is an originally included nominal 
species, correctly identified by Robineau-Desvoidy, and fixed as type-species of the 
genus by subsequent designation of Crosskey (1967 : 26). 
Tachina vivipara Fabricius is also type-species by original designation of Stivaulax 
Enderlein, and this name thus falls as a junior objective synonym of Rutilia Robineau- 
Desvoidy. One other name enters into junior synonymy with Ruizlia s.str., namely 
Psaromella Enderlein, the type-species of which was cited by Enderlein (1936 : 417) 
as castanipes Bigot; but Enderlein misidentified Rutilia castanipes Bigot (which 
belongs in subgenus Donovanius, the name a synonym of imusta Wiedemann) and 
the single specimen from Gippsland, Victoria, that he cited belongs to Rutilia (Rutilia) 
setosa Macquart, and the generic name Psaroniella is therefore a synonym of Rutilia 
s.str. and not of Donovanius. (The 9 specimen identified as castanipes by Enderlein 
is in MNHU collection, Berlin, and has been examined: it is labelled ‘Koonwarra 
Gippsland, Victoria’ and has a determination label in Enderlein’s hand reading 
‘Psaroniella castanipes (Big. 1880) 9 Dr Enderlein det. 1936’.) 
Rutilia s.str. contains only a small number of species, and although the typical 
group of the genus in a nomenclatorial sense is not very representative of the wide 
range of forms included in the genus as a whole. The rather strongly developed 
ventral marginal bristling of the abdominal tergites, especially in vivipara itself, 
sets the subgenus rather apart from all the other Ritilia, and the possession of only 
three strong setae on the postalar callus makes the included forms rather obviously 
different from superficially similar large brown forms with depressed tip to the 
abdomen found in the subgenus Donovanius. In vivipara the abdominal chaetotaxy 
is more strongly spiniform than in all other Rutilia s.1. and the marginal setae of the 
ventral ends of the tergites are so strong and stiff that they simulate the similar very 
strong setae found in Formosia; but whereas in Formoszia the bristles of the tergite 
venters are directed almost straight downwards those of R. vivipara are directed 
backwards or mainly so (and those of the female are shorter and more stubby than 
those of the male). The third abdominal tergite in Rutilia s.str. has unusually well 
developed median marginal setae, which often enable specimens of the subgenus to 
be distinguished at once from other subgenera. Normally the T3 median marginals 
form a transverse row of about six to a dozen erect setae, the row bowing forwards 
near the centre so that the middle one or two pairs of marginal bristles are not close 
to the hind edge of the tergite like the rest (and are therefore less truly marginal) ; 
