TACHINIDAE OF ORIENTAL REGION 103 



The Oriental fauna is essentially very similar in character to that of the Palaearctic 

 Region and is mostly comprised of genera that are common to both areas. Two 

 small endemic genera are recognized, Sericotachina Townsend and Eristaliomyia 

 Tovvnsend, but their members are perhaps no more than rather strongly apomorphic 

 Servillia Robineau-Desvoidy and these two genera are possibly unwarranted. They 

 are accepted as valid in the present work largely to preserve the homogeneity of 

 Servillia - a group which has speciated considerably in the Oriental Region (account- 

 ing for two-thirds of the specific fauna) but nevertheless retains considerable uni- 

 formity. 



In dealing with the old-established and well known genera Servillia and Cuphocera 

 Macquart it has been necessary to decide whether to follow Mesnil (1966; 1970a) 

 and treat them as synonymous with Tachina Meigen and Peleteria Robineau- 

 Desvoidy respectively, or whether to treat them in the traditional way and accept 

 them as valid genera. The latter course has been decided upon, as it seems more 

 helpful in an essentially practical work of this kind; at the same time it is recognized, 

 and should be mentioned, that Mesnil's approach is probably wholly justified from 

 the phylogenetic point of view. Servillia has male genitalia of the Tachina type 

 and can only be very intangibly distinguished from Tachina by possessing (in 

 most forms at least) softer, furrier, and paler hairing. Nevertheless there is a 

 zoogeographical element involved which offers some support for the practical value 

 of recognizing Servillia as valid. The whole Tachina-Servillia complex is Eurasian, 

 but entirely black-haired forms are virtually confined to northern and western 

 Eurasia (there being almost none in the Oriental Region proper) whereas almost 

 all of the rich south-eastern Eurasian fauna comprises forms possessing some or 

 much soft pale hair. (Ranking of Servillia as a subgenus of Tachina lias been 

 considered, but rejected at present because of the nomenclatural problems of 

 homonymy - not dealt with by Mesnil -that are raised when nominal species 

 described in Servillia are transferred to Tachina.) 



The question of Cuphocera is different from that of Servillia for there is no difficulty 

 in differentiating it from the genus Peleteria (as usually defined) with which Mesnil 

 has synonymized it: in Peleteria the palpi are fully developed (long, slender, reaching 

 or surpassing the epistome) and in Cuphocera they are absent or vestigial. Again a 

 zoogeographical element is involved in the difference, for in the Oriento-Australasian 

 Regions only the non-palpate forms in the complex (Cuphocera species) are repre- 

 sented. Treatment oiCuphocera as a subgenus of Peleteria might be a sensible course, 

 but is not adopted here because the complex of forms involved has not been studied 

 on a world basis. 



The most extraordinary of all Oriental Tachinini is the very rare species that 

 Tothill (1918) described from northern India under the name Chaetoplagia asiatica. 

 This odd fly has a rather voriine facies that led Tothill to describe it in the American 

 voriine genus Chaetoplagia Coquillett, but examination of the lectotype (herein 

 designated) and another specimen for the present work has shown clearly that 

 Tothiirs placement is erroneous. The species belongs in the Tachinini (as is well 

 shown by the finely haired posterodorsal surface of the hind coxa and other charac- 

 ters) but not to any previously described genus. As the species has a very unusual 



