TACHINIDAE OF ORIENTAL REGION 



39 



and Chetoptilia cyanea Mesnil (Malagasian) , and the removal of these two species 

 to Paraptilops leaves the redefined Chetoptilia Rondani (Chaetoptilia auct.) as a 

 monotypic genus containing only C. puella Rondani of the Palaearctic Region. The 

 distinctions between Paraptilops and Chetoptilia noted by Mesnil (1975a : 1358, 

 key-couplet 2) lie in the length of the abdominal T5 in relation to T4, the presence 

 or absence of discal setae on T5 and the antennal colour. In itself the antennal 

 colour cannot really be regarded as of generic value, and the distinctions are thus 

 reduced to the fifth abdominal tergite and its bristling. Here there is a difficulty 

 in maintaining the distinctions that Mesnil cites, because while it is the case that 

 T5 is shorter than T4 in Paraptilops angustifrons (Mesnil) this is not the case in 

 P. cyanea (Mesnil): the holotype of cyanea and other specimens of this species 

 (in BMNH collection) show that in cyanea the proportions of T5 and T4 are just 

 about the same as in Chetoptilia (T5 being obviously longer than T4). This being 

 the case, the only remaining difference between Paraptilops and Chetoptilia is that 

 abdominal T5 has some erect discal setae in the latter but not in the former. In 

 my opinion this is, by itself, too insubstantial a character to justify generic separation 

 and I accordingly place Paraptilops as a new synonym of Chetoptilia. (It should 

 be mentioned, however, that the processes of the male genitalia are much longer 

 in the type-species of Chetoptilia than in the other species that now revert to this 

 genus.) 



Mesnil has not placed the Oriental genus Chaetoptiliopsis Baranov and comment 

 is necessary on this nominal taxon and its status. Chaetoptiliopsis is still known 

 only from the male holotype and one female paratype that were the whole type- 

 series of Chaetoptiliopsis burmanica (both in BMNH collection but in poor condition), 

 and the status of this nominal genus has to be determined from this limited material. 

 Examination of the original material of burmanica shows that Chaetoptiliopsis is 

 exceedingly similar to Chetoptilia but that it differs by some features which could 

 be considered, at least by a splitting approach, as of generic value. In C. burmanica 

 cross-vein m-cu is distinctly sigmoid (instead of straight as in Chetoptilia) and 

 meets vein M much nearer to the bend than to r-m (instead of about equidistantly 

 between the two as in Chetoptilia), there are no marginal setae on abdominal T3 

 (marginals present on this tergite in Chetoptilia), the mid tibial v seta is well developed 

 (weak or almost absent in Chetoptilia), and the vibrissae are of moderate strength 

 (very well developed in Chetoptilia). Whether or not to consider these differences 

 as warranting separate generic status is difficult to decide, but for purposes of 

 the present work it is thought best to take the lumping approach that shows up 

 resemblance rather than the splitting approach to show up difference, and Chaetopti- 

 liopsis is here treated as a synonym of Chetoptilia: future discovery of the hosts of 

 C. burmanica might assist in determining with more certainty whether this synonymy 

 is justified. Meanwhile it is pertinent to observe that Chaetoptiliopsis runs straight 

 to Paraptilops in Mesnil's key, as burmanica lacks definite discals on T5 and has 

 yellowish brown (not black) antennae (but it differs of course from Paraptilops by 

 the features already cited above that differentiate it from Chetoptilia in the strict 

 sense). 



The genera other than Chetoptilia that occur in the Oriental Region and are 



