Key to the Bacchini and Melanostomini of the Philippines, Wallacea, Australasia and Oceania

For me the origins of this little escapade can be traced back to the time I was involved with implementing the taxonomy of Platycheirus on iNat a while ago and discovered the intriguing New Zealand subgenus-raised-to-genus Eocheilosia. I learned a little more about the genus some time later through a series of conversations with @steve_kerr to whom I am grateful for showing me descriptions of the species I hadn't yet found. I realised that there weren't too many other Bacchines or Melanostomines in the wider region and thought it could be expanded a bit. So here we are.

I have produced a separate key for the Eocheilosia not only because it is by far the largest genus in the region, but also because the difficulties of that genus are so particularly acute. Be sure to read the introductory slides. I should say that that particular key must be taken with a whole mouthful of salt!! I think of it more as a way of beginning to feel around the genus - any ID should be checked with the original descriptions which are almost all linked to in the Powerpoint (bearing in mind that in Eocheilosia there are as many known undescribed species as there are described species!!)

Species included:

BACCHINI
Baccha maculata
Eocheilosia antipoda, captalis, clarkei, cunninghami, fulvipes, harrisi, howesii, huttoni, leptospermi, lignudus, myersii, notata, ronana
Platycheirus albimanus, stegnus

MELANOSTOMINI
Melanostoma apicale, atrum, fasciatum, fumivenosum, polynesiotes, univittatum
Xanthandrus agrolas, bergmani, bicinctus, orientalis

Posted on January 19, 2023 10:25 PM by matthewvosper matthewvosper

Comments

Posted by matthewvosper about 1 year ago

Very nice !! Do you happen to have this as a WORD document ? (please email if you don't mind sharing)

Posted by steve_kerr about 1 year ago

@steve_kerr the Eocheilosia bit is only slightly rearranged from the one I sent you a while back (I moved lignudus to key out earlier). The other one I do not have in word, but it wouldn't be too much of a challenge to change that :)

Posted by matthewvosper about 1 year ago

Ahhhh ... so it is. I'll go with the one you sent.

Posted by steve_kerr about 1 year ago

Add a Comment

Sign In or Sign Up to add comments