Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:54:13.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Contribution to Knowledge of the Tabanidae of Palestine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Major E. E. Austen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the present moment our knowledge of the Dipterous fauna, including the Tabanidae, of Palestine is little better than complete ignorance, consisting as it does solely of a few isolated records of species—chiefly mosquitos. The following paper, which it is intended shall be succeeded by others dealing with other families of Diptera, based upon material collected by the author in Palestine during the recent campaign against the Turks, is a modest attempt to lift one small corner of the veil of obscurity.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , March 1920 , pp. 277 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1920

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 277 note * Bezzi (Brotéria, Ser. Zool., Vol. viii, fasc. 2, 1909, p. 37), writing on Diptera from Syria, remarks: — “The peculiar character of the fauna is to be deduced from the multitude of Bombyliidae: this family is preeminent among all others owing to the beauty and wealth of its species, and constitutes 21.6 per cent of the entire collection.” In a foot-note on the same page Bezzi points out that, among thirty-seven species of Syrian Diptera recorded by Loew (“Nachricht über syrische Dipteren,” Verh.z.-b. Ges. Wien, Bd. vii, 1857, pp. 79–80), the Bombyliidae amount to 56.7 per cent.

page 277 note † The material belonging to this family collected by the author in Palestine during 1917–18 consists of 289 specimens—nearly twice as many as those obtained belonging to any other family; the precise number of Tabanidae brought back was 136.

page 278 note * Bezzi (loc. cit., p. 41, Tab. ix, fig. 32) describes and figures, under the name P. sulcata, a new species of Pangonia from Syria.

page 279 note * For names and illustrations of colours used for descriptive purposes in the present paper, see Ridgway, “Color Standards and Color Nomenclature” (Washington, D. C. Published by the Author. 1912).

page 280 note * Sometimes obscured by hair, in which case it may be difficult to distinguish. If, however, the head be examined from the left side, with a hand-lens magnifying about 5 diameters, the groove, if present though indistinguishable in the left antenna, can generally be seen distinctly on examining the inner side of the first joint of the right antenna.

page 293 note * In this table, as in that for the genus Haematopota above, contrasted and mutually exclusive statements and summaries of characters are indicated by the paired numbers on the left, the contrasted conditions in each case being shown, either subsequently or previously, under the second number of the pair (i.e., the one in roúnd brackets).

The number in square brackets [ ] after the name of a species indicates the serial position of the species in the ensuing pages.

It should be noted that the characters of a given species shown in the table are only sufficient to distinguish it from the other species included in the present synopsis; they are not necessarily distinctive as regards known species not yet met with in Palestine, but which may ultimately prove to form part of its fauna.

Tabanus insecutor, sp. n., is shown twice in the table, since it is included in both the hairy-eyed and bare-eyed categories the very minute hairs on the eyes in the ♀ being liable to be overlooked on a first examination.

page 296 note * The ♂ genitalia of this North African form have been examined microscopically and compared with those of the typical race, as found near Jerisheh; a similar comparison has been made in the case of the infra-anal plate of the ♀. The differences noted in each instance appear to be merely trivial, and, so far as the limited material available for study permits a definite conclusion to be drawn (a pair of specimens of each form is all that can at present be devoted to dissection), cannot be regarded as anything more than individual.