Ragadidae Sinclair 2016

Family Ragadidae Sinclair, 2016

Figs 2 A–C, 3, 4A–C, 5

Diagnosis

The Ragadidae are separated from the Dolichopodidae and the Hybotidae Meigen, 1820 by the presence of unrotated and symmetrical male genitalia, and with a point of origin of R S at a distance from crossvein h being equal to, or longer than, crossvein h. The family is distinguished from the Atelestidae Hennig, 1970 in having a circumambient costa. It is separated from the Empididae by a prosternum that is separated from the proepisternum (except in species of Hydropeza). The representatives of Hydropeza are distinguished by the presence of a recurved labrum, which is straight in the Empididae.

Description

Labrum truncate apically. R S origins at a distance from crossvein h as long as or longer than crossvein h itself; subcosta reaches costa (except in Hydropeza spp.); R 4+5 branched (except in Anthepiscopus spp.); costa circumambient. Prosternum separated from proepisternum (except in Hydropeza spp.);

laterotergite bare (except in Dipsomyia spp.). Males: terminalia symmetrical and unrotated; postgonites present; cercus weakly sclerotized.

Comments

The diagnostic characters showed below are based on the results of Wahlberg & Johanson (2018), reflecting the expanded concept of including the Iteaphilinae in the family. The Ragadidae are recorded from all the biogeographic regions except Antarctica, and fossil records in Baltic amber suggest this group to be at least 40 million years old (Sinclair 1999).

Included subfamilies

Subfamily Ragadinae Sinclair, 2016.

Subfamily Iteaphilinae Wahlberg & Johanson, 2018.

Key to the subfamilies and genera

1. Fore coxa with stout spine like setae on anterior face (Fig. 6A).…........................…(Ragadinae) 2

– Stout spine like setae on anterior face of fore coxa absent (Fig. 6C).........................(Iteaphilinae) 5

2. Postgena with stout spine like setae (Fig. 6A, 7C); wings without costal bristle; spine like setae present on inner ventral margin of fore trochanter (Figs 6A, 7G)..........................…..3

– Postgena bare or with setae, not spine like (Figs 6C, 7 A–B); costal bristle present; fore trochanter without spine like setae on inner margin (Figs 6C, 7F)......……............................…4

3. Eyes pubescent (Fig. 7C); in wings, CuA recurved (Fig. 9D); fore coxa with tubercle (Fig. 7G)...................................................................................................................…. Zanclotus Wilder, 1982

– Eyes bare (Fig. 6A); in wings, CuA straight (Fig. 9A); fore coxa without tubercle (Fig. 6A, cf. 7D–F) …..……………...............................................................................…………….. Ragas Walker, 1837

4. Eyes pubescent (Fig. 7B); prosternum fused with proepisternum forming a precoxal bridge (Fig. 7E); laterotergite without setae ….............................................… Hydropeza Sinclair, 1999

– Eyes bare (Fig. 7A); prosternum separated from proepisternum forming an isolated sclerite (Fig. 7D); laterotergite with setae …….....................................................................… Dipsomyia Bezzi, 1909

5. In wings, costal bristle present; CuA straight (Fig. 9G); scape always bare (Fig. 8A) ………................…………….................................................................……………. Hormopeza Zetterstedt, 1838

– In wings, costal bristle absent; CuA recurved (Figs 9 E–F); scape always with setae (Fig. 6B)...6

6. In wings, R 4+5 branched into R 4 and R 5 (Fig. 9E) ….....................… Iteaphila Zetterstedt, 1838

– In wings,R 4+5 unbranched (Fig. 9F) ……..........................................…… Anthepiscopus Becker, 1891