go R. W. CROSSKEY 



The characteristics that Mesnil has used for the separation of Nemoraea and 

 Hypotachina (syn. Dexiomima Brauer & Bergenstamm) undoubtedly work well 

 for the majority of nemoraeine species, but, as I have pointed out earlier (Crosskey, 

 1967c; 19736), there are many species (some of them not yet described) that possess 

 suites of characters that will not permit them to be placed in one genus or another 

 if Nemoraea is treated in a restricted sense. 



The BMNH contains the richest collection of Nemoraea material, and as many 

 species (some undescribed) occur in the Oriental Region the opportunity has been 

 taken whilst preparing the present work to study this material in detail. My 

 conclusion from this is that neither the combinations of characters used by Mesnil, 

 nor any combinations of characters, will suffice to differentiate satisfactory genera 

 (or subgenera) within the Nemoraea complex if all the species are considered; I 

 therefore take the same view that van Emden (i960) took when dealing with the 

 Ethiopian fauna, namely that Nemoraea is best treated as a single large genus 

 embracing forms showing all combinations of the characteristics mentioned above. 



The following examples are mentioned to indicate how the characters of certain 

 species cut across those that are used by Mesnil to distinguish Hypotachina from 

 Nemoraea. In the African species infoederata Villeneuve and in an undetermined 

 species from Madagascar there are four post dc setae and a prst ia seta (as Nemoraea) 

 but the second costal sector is haired and the lower calypter almost all bare (as 

 Hypotachina); in dotata (Walker) from Celebes there are three post dc setae (as 

 Hypotachina) but the second costal sector is bare (as Nemoraea); in titan (Walker) 

 with four post dc setae and in dotata (Walker) with three post dc setae the prst dc 

 seta is usually absent but is differentiated in some specimens; and in several species 

 that normally possess four post dc setae there may be only three in some specimens. 

 These examples demonstrate the high degree of intermediacy existing between 

 typical Nemoraea and typical Hypotachina and contra-indicate generic validity 

 for the latter. 



As the result of the broad generic concept here preferred for Nemoraea several 

 genus-group names based on Old World type-species are treated as synonyms 

 [Dexiomima Brauer & Bergenstamm, Oxyrutilia Townsend, Prohypotachina Town- 

 send, Protonemoraea Baranov, Kinabaluia Malloch, and Echinemoraea Mesnil). 

 (The foregoing list of synonyms excludes the names based on New World type- 

 species that are implicitly synonyms under the broad concept for Nemoraea: formal 

 establishment of such synonymies is outside the scope of this work.) 



My synonymizing of the recently proposed name Echinemoraea Mesnil with 

 Nemoraea requires brief comment. Mesnil (1971& : 987) proposed Echinemorea 

 for the single species echinata Mesnil that he had earlier described in Nemoraea, 

 the main differences from Nemoraea being the presence of strong spiniform bristling 

 on the abdomen and scutellum, the lack of apical scutellar setae, and the extent of 

 hairing on the lower calypter (on half the surface instead of either the whole surface 

 as in typical Nemoraea or solely on the outer edge as in Hypotachina) . These features 

 do not seem to warrant generic separation for echinata, for apomorphic development 

 of spines in place of bristles is a frequent occurrence within tachinid genera (in 

 the case of the scutellum often associated with reduction or loss of the normal 



