Caenoconops, Stuke, 2019

Stuke, Jens-Hermann, 2019, New conopid records from the Afrotropical Region (Diptera: Conopidae). Part 2: Conopinae excluding Physocephalini, Israel Journal of Entomology (Oxford, England) 49 (2), pp. 277-349 : 283-284

Genus Caenoconops Kröber, 1939

Although the genus Caenoconops can be recognised easily and is well characterised in the original description, there is much confusion concerning the authorship and type species. Kröber (1939: 372) described Caenoconops briefly as follows: “Dann muss aber auf jeden Fall für Conops rhodesiensis Brun. ein neues Genus geschaffen werden. Für Conops gibt Szil. das gleichmässig schwach konvex begrenzte Vertexkissen an. C. rhodesiensis aber hat ein Vertexkissen, das vorn dreimal tief ausgebuchtet ist und dessen Mittelstück ein deutliches OzellenhÖckerchen trägt, eine Bildung, die ich bei keiner anderen Form wiedergesehen habe. Ich nenne diese Gattung Caenoconops , n. gen. ”. Kröber included this new genus as Caenoconops gen. nov. in his key on the following page 373. Smith (1980) evidently overlooked the short description and the comment concerning Conops rhodesiensis on page 372 but found the genus name Caenoconops in the key on page 373. Consequently Smith (1980) listed the genus in the catalogue of Afrotropical Diptera as “ Caenoconops Kröber, 1939: 373 ” and designated “ Conops rhodesiensis Brunetti, 1925 ” as the type species. This incorrect catalogue citation led Evenhuis et al. (2008) to the conclusion that Caenoconops is a post-1930 Diptera genus-group name without a type species designation, from which they concluded that Caenoconops Kröber, 1939 is a nomen nudum, and that the correct name for the genus was only created by the type species designation of Anonymous (1940). Anonymous (1940), however, designated Caenoconops subapicalis Kröber, 1939 as the type species of Caenoconops . The view of Evenhuis et al. (2008) was subsequently adopted by Gibson and Skevington (2013) in their revision of conopid genera. When looking at the page number given for Kröber´s description of Caenoconops it is obvious that both Evenhuis et al. (2008) and Gibson & Skevington (2013) also overlooked—as Smith (1980) did before—the description of Caenoconops on page 372 of KrÖber’s work. Camras (2000) correctly recognised the description on page 372, but failed to point out the type species designation by Kröber. Nevertheless, on page 372 of his 1939 work Kröber unquestionably fixed Conops rhodesiensis as the type species for his new genus as cited above, and therefore his description of Caenoconops is valid with Conops rhodesiensis Brunetti, 1925 as the type species by original designation. This interpretation was adopted in the world checklist of Stuke (2017).

Camras (2000) also realised that Conops rhodesiensis was misinterpreted by Smith (1980) and correctly excluded it from Caenoconops and included it instead in Physoconops . Camras (2000) unjustifiably postulated Conops bicolor Kröber, 1931 to be the type species of Caenoconops because this species was wrongly listed by Smith (1980) as a synonym of Conops rhodesiensis . Consequently Camras (2000) used Caenoconops as Kröber did. A recent examination of the holotype of Conops rhodesiensis Brunetti, 1925 shows that Kröber misidentified this species, however. Conops rhodesiensis belongs to Schedophysoconops Gibson, 2013 and not to Caenoconops sensu Kröber. In order to prevent more confusion and to serve stability and universality I herewith select and thereby fix as the type species for Caenoconops Kröber, 1939 (under Article 70.3 of the Code; ICZN 1999) Conops bicolor Kröber, 1931 , misidentified as Conops rhodesiensis Brunetti, 1925 in the original designation by Kröber (1939).

Key 2 separates the Afrotropical genera of Conopinae with ocelli and with the first flagellomere at most about as long as the pedicel. Key 3 separates the two known species of Caenoconops .