taxonID	type	description	language	source
03FE5B2EFFCBFFE9FF2DFC7E3A29F983.taxon	type_taxon	Type species: Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 (the 4 th of 14 originally included species), by present designation. Junior homonym of Bibio Geoffroy, 1762. Objective synonym of Thereva Latreille, 1797 (see below), syn. n. (Therevidae).	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFCBFFE9FF2DFC7E3A29F983.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The name Bibio Geoffroy, 1762, originally proposed mainly for species of Bibionidae, was cited under Tipula hortulana Linnaeus by Fabricius (1775: 754, 1794: 248). In the same work Fabricius (1775) made his own proposal of the name Bibio for 14 species belonging to the families Bombyliidae (8), Therevidae (4), Mydidae (1) and Stratiomyidae (1). Fabricius (1805) later refined his concept of Bibio to consist of 10 Therevidae and 1 species each of the families Athericidae, Phoridae and Syrphidae. Fabricius’s usage of Bibio for therevid flies became widely accepted in the pre- 1815 literature (J. W. Meigen, C. F. Fallén, etc.), but was later replaced by the name Thereva Latreille, 1797. The type species of Thereva Latreille, 1797 was designated by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2006: 72) as Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 under their Plenary Powers. The present fixation of a type species for Bibio Fabricius, 1775 places at long last this name into formal (and objective) synonymy with Thereva Latreille. Incidentally, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1957: 88) placed Bibio Fabricius, 1775 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (Name No. 841).	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFCBFFEAFF2DF9293B28FE8D.taxon	type_taxon	Type species: Ceria clavicornis Weber, 1795 [= Musca conopsoides Linnaeus, 1758], by subsequent monotypy (Weber 1795). Junior homonym of Ceria Scopoli, 1763. Replaced by Ceriana Rafinesque, 1815, nomen novum for Ceria Fabricius, 1794 (Syrphidae).	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFCBFFEAFF2DF9293B28FE8D.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The name Ceria Scopoli, 1763 was originally proposed for two species of Scatopsidae. Fabricius (1794) proposed the name Ceria for a species of Syrphidae and his usage of the name became widely accepted in pre- 1902 literature (P. A. Latreille, J. W. Meigen, J. W. Zetterstedt, G. H. Verrall, etc.). A description of the only included species was given by Fabricius (1794), but inadvertently the specific name [clavicornis] was omitted. It first appeared in an index to the four volumes (1792 – 1794) of Fabricius’s Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta prepared by Weber (1795). Accordingly, the authorship of Ceria clavicornis is correctly attributed to Weber (1795) rather than Fabricius (1794). This interpretation of type fixation of Ceria Fabricius, 1794 is the same as that of Sabrosky (1999: 79) except that authorship of Ceria clavicornis was attributed in that work to Fabricius, 1795 not Weber, 1795.	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFC8FFEAFF2DFE1C3A29FCB2.taxon	type_taxon	Type species: Tipula marci Linnaeus, 1758 (cited by Fabricius in synonymy with Tipula hortulana Linnaeus, 1758, the 2 nd of 13 originally included species), by subsequent designation of Zetterstedt (1850: 3368). Junior homonym of Hirtea Scopoli, 1763. Junior subjective synonym of Bibio Geoffroy, 1762 (type species: Tipula hortulana Linnaeus, 1758) (Bibionidae).	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFC8FFEAFF2DFE1C3A29FCB2.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Hirtea Scopoli, 1763 was originally proposed for a species of the family Stratiomyidae. Fabricius (1798) made his own proposal of the name Hirtea for 13 species belonging to the families Bibionidae (8), Sciaridae (2), Cecidomyiidae (1), Scatopsidae (1) and Therevidae (1). In his final classification, Fabricius (1805) included in Hirtea 14 Bibionidae, 1 Sciaridae and 1 Therevidae. Fabricius’s usage of the name Hirtea for bibionid flies became widely accepted in the pre- 1850 literature (J. W. Meigen, G. W. F. Panzer, J. W. Zetterstedt, etc.), but was gradually replaced by the older name Bibio Geoffroy, 1762. Incidentally, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1957: 88) placed Hirtea Fabricius, 1798 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (Name No. 840).	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFC8FFEAFF2DFC5A3B79FA9F.taxon	type_taxon	Type species: Musca bicincta Linnaeus, 1758 (the 1 st of nine originally included species), by present designation. Junior homonym of Mulio Latreille, 1797. Senior but invalid objective synonym of Chrysotoxum Meigen, 1803 (type species: Musca bicincta Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphidae).	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFC8FFEAFF2DFC5A3B79FA9F.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The first usage of the name Mulio by Latreille (1797) was for species of the family Bombyliidae. Fabricius (1798) proposed Mulio for nine species belonging to the families Syrphidae (7), Psilidae (1) and Sciomyzidae (1), but subsequently (1805) exclusively for 12 species of Syrphidae. Fabricius’s usage of Mulio received limited acceptance in the early literature (e. g., by C. F. Fallén), probably because Meigen (1803) transferred species recognized in Mulio by Fabricius (1798) to two new genera of Syrphidae (Microdon Meigen, Chrysotoxum) and one new genus of Psilidae (Loxocera Meigen).	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFC8FFEBFF2DFA2D3918FE45.taxon	type_taxon	Type species: Musca fimetaria Linnaeus, 1761 (the 5 th of 31 originally included species), by present designation. Junior objective synonym of Psila Meigen, 1803 (type species: Musca fimetaria Linnaeus, 1761), syn. n. (Psilidae).	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFC8FFEBFF2DFA2D3918FE45.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Scathophaga Meigen, 1803, originally proposed for dung flies (“ Musca merdaria etc. Fabricius ”) of the family Scathophagidae, was cited by Fabricius (1805: 306, misspelled as Scatophaga) under Musca merdaria Fabricius, 1794 (= Musca stercoraria Linnaeus, 1758). Other species of the current genus Scathophaga Meigen (e. g., scybalaria Linnaeus, 1758 and lutaria Fabricius, 1794) were also consistently classified in Musca Linnaeus, 1758 by Fabricius (1805). However, Fabricius (1805: 203 – 210) proposed a different usage of the name Scatophaga for 31 species of mostly testaceous acalyptrate flies with a short, porrect antennal postpedicel. Most of the included species belong to the families Sciomyzidae, Lauxaniidae and Ulidiidae. Species of Scathophaga Meigen are different in having antennae with a longer, deflexed postpedicel. Only a single species (Musca suilla Fabricius, 1794) among the 31 species originally included in Scatophaga Fabricius belongs to the Scathophagidae. The identity of that nominal species is treated below. The different usage of the name Scatophaga introduced by Fabricius (1805), which embraces a poorly defined assemblage of mostly acalyptrate flies, has consistently been overlooked (or ignored?) by dipterists up to the present. Adding to the confusion, Meigen (1826) adopted Fabricius’s spelling “ Scatophaga ” for his own genus of dung flies without, of course, adopting Fabricius’s usage of the name. This should be categorized as an “ incorrect subsequent spelling ” of Scathophaga Meigen, even though it may well have been done deliberately. The present fixation of a type species refers Scatophaga Fabricius to the Psilidae. Note that Scatophaga Fabricius, 1805 and Scathophaga Meigen, 1803 are not homonyms according to the Code Article 56.2 (one letter difference).	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFC9FFEBFF2DFE543A56FB2A.taxon	type_taxon	Type species: Musca ferruginea Scopoli, 1763, as a consequence of a ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1997: 133). By the same ruling, Sicus Fabricius, 1798 was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and declared a junior objective synonym of Coenomyia Latreille, 1797 (Xylophagidae). Junior homonym of Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and Sicus Latreille, 1797.	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFC9FFEBFF2DFE543A56FB2A.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The first usage of the name Sicus was by Scopoli (1763) for species of Conopidae, the second usage was by Latreille (1797) for a species of Hybotidae, and the third usage was by Fabricius (1798) for five nominal species of Xylophagidae. These five nominal species of Sicus Fabricius are all, with varying confidence, regarded as junior synonyms of one variable species, Coenomyia ferruginea (Scopoli, 1763). Although one of Fabricius’s species was named Sicus ferruginea and has subsequently been established as a synonym of Musca ferruginea Scopoli, 1763, there was no indication by Fabricius that his ferruginea was used in the sense of ferruginea Scopoli. We contend that the Fabricius name was a separate proposal and should have been interpreted by subsequent authors as ferruginea Fabricius, 1798, not as ferruginea Scopoli, 1763. Under such an interpretation, Sabrosky (1961: 228) could not have designated Musca ferruginea Scopoli as the type species of Sicus Fabricius. We will not elaborate on the nomenclatural ramifications this would have had on the type species of Coenomyia Latreille, 1797 and Sicus Fabricius, 1798 because the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1997: 133) ruled that Sicus Fabricius, 1798 is a junior objective synonym of Coenomyia Latreille, 1797, thereby effectively upholding the type species of Sicus Fabricius as Musca ferruginea Scopoli, 1763. The name Sicus Fabricius, 1798 was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology by the same ruling and according to Code Article 80.7.1: “ A work, name or nomenclatural act entered in an Official Index has the status attributed to it in the relevant ruling (s). ”	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFC9FFEBFF2DFAB33C94F913.taxon	type_taxon	Type species: Conops subcoleoptratus Linnaeus, 1767 (the 1 st of six included species), by designation of Herting (1984: 168). Junior homonym of Thereva Latreille, 1797. Senior but invalid objective synonym of Phasia Latreille, 1804 (type species: Conops subcoleoptratus Linnaeus, 1767) (Tachinidae). The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2006) placed the name Thereva Fabricius, 1798 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology following an application by Holston et al. (2003).	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFC9FFEBFF2DFAB33C94F913.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The first usage of the name Thereva by Latreille (1797) was for species of Therevidae and thus equals the earlier usage of Bibio by Fabricius (1775). Fabricius (1798) first proposed the name Thereva for six species of Tachinidae, and subsequently (Fabricius, 1805) for 13 Tachinidae and one Syrphidae. Fabricius’s usage of Thereva for species of phasiine Tachinidae became widely accepted in the pre- 1820 literature (J. W. Meigen, G. W. F. Panzer, C. F. Fallén, etc.), but his name was replaced later by Phasia Latreille, 1804.	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFC9FFECFF2DF8B938F2FC0A.taxon	type_taxon	Type species: Voluccella florea Fabricius, 1794 (the 1 st of three originally included species), automatic as the result of Latreille’s (1810) designation of Voluccella florea Fabricius as type species for Usia Latreille, 1802, an unnecessary new replacement name for Voluccella Fabricius, 1794. Voluccella Fabricius, 1794 was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (Name No. 844) by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1957: 88) and is therefore a senior but invalid synonym of Usia Latreille (Bombyliidae).	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFC9FFECFF2DF8B938F2FC0A.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The name Volucella Geoffroy, 1762, as originally proposed for species of Syrphidae, was cited under Musca pellucens Linnaeus, 1758 by Fabricius (1775: 773, misspelled as Voluccella; 1781: 435, as Voluccella), and under Syrphus pellucens (Linnaeus, 1758) by Fabricius (1794: 279, as Volucella; 1805: 224, as Voluccella). Fabricius (1794: 412) deliberately proposed a different usage of the name Voluccella for three species of the family Bombyliidae, and this usage qualifies as a new available name. Two original spellings of the name were given in Fabricius (1794): Voluccella (p. 412) and Volvicella (p. [5] of the unnumbered index). Acting as First Reviser, Fabricius (1805) selected Voluccella as the correct original spelling (Code Article 24.2.4). Fabricius (1805: 114 – 116) included six species of the Bombyliidae in his Voluccella. Meigen (1804) initially adopted the usage of Voluccella proposed by Fabricius, but the name was subsequently replaced by Usia Latreille. Volucella Geoffroy and Voluccella Fabricius are not homonyms because the names differ by one letter (Code Article 56.2). Evenhuis & Greathead (2003: 10 – 11) understood this and believed therefore that the widely used generic name Usia Latreille, 1802 in Bombyliidae, originally proposed as a replacement name for Voluccella Fabricius, 1794, was threatened as a junior synonym. These authors were aware that Voluccella Fabricius was invalid as the result of a ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1957: 88) (see Evenhuis 1991: 77) but were concerned that this ruling could be challenged and potentially overturned (as allowed under Code Article 80.4) because it was based on the misinterpretation of Voluccella as a misspelling of Volucella Geoffroy (N. Evenhuis, pers. comm.). To permanently fix the priority of Usia Latreille, 1802 over Voluccella Fabricius, 1794, Evenhuis & Greathead (2003) declared the former as a nomen protectum and the latter as a nomen oblitum.	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
03FE5B2EFFCEFFEDFF2DFBEB399EFE8D.taxon	materials_examined	Type material (Figs. 1 – 3). Fabricius (1794) stated only the origin ‘ in Germaniae’ [= in Germany], and collector ‘ Smidt’ [= A. L. Smidt?] of the type material of Musca suilla. Accordingly, the only specimen (1 ♀) found in Coll. Fabricius [= ‘ Kiel’ of Zimsen 1964: 475] of the Natural History Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, may be regarded as a syntype. It is here designated as lectotype and labelled as such, in order to fix the identity of the name suilla. Only the wings, posterior part of the mesonotum and distal part of the coxa + trochanter + basal part of femur of the left hind leg remain of the lectotype, attached to a short pin with a Fabrician label reading ‘ suilla’. Identity. Musca suilla Fabricius, 1794 is not a species of Scathophaga Meigen, 1803 as first surmised by Fallén’s (1819) placement of the species in his equivalent genus Scatomyza Fallén, 1810. Accordingly, Musca suilla is not a senior synonym of Scathophaga spurca Meigen, 1826 (published as “ Scatophaga ” spurca) as first proposed by Becker (1894: 167) and accepted by subsequent authors (e. g., Thompson & Pont 1994). The colour, the pale setae on the hind leg fragment, the scutellum with only one pair of strong setae (two pairs in relevant species of Scathophaga!), the wing venation including a costal vein with humeral and subcostal breaks and uniform, fine setulae leave no doubt that the remains of the lectotype (Figs. 1, 2) belong to a common European scathophagid originally described as Cordylura spinimana Fallén, 1819 and currently known as Norellisoma spinimanum (Fallén), syn. n. The presence of a black seta among the pale setae on the distal part of the hind coxa further indicates that the lectotype remains belong to a female. The nominal species Musca suilla Fabricius, 1794 has not previously been synonymized with Norellisoma spinimanum (Fallén, 1819), but has since 1894 consistently been misinterpreted as a species of Scathophaga Meigen. The junior synonym Cordylura spinimana Fallén, 1819 has been used as valid as either Norellia (Norellisoma) spinimana (Fallén) or Norellisoma spinimanum (Fallén) in more than 25 works by at least 10 authors in the last 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years as documented in Appendix 1. We hereby invoke, in the interests of nomenclatural stability, reversal of precedence (Code Article 23.9), and declare Musca suilla Fabricius, 1794 as a nomen oblitum and Cordylura spinimana Fallén, 1819 as a nomen protectum. As discussed in the above catalogue, Fabricius (1805) proposed the name Scatophaga for species of Sciomyzidae and similar flies with a short and porrect antennal postpedicel. Meigen (1803) proposed the name Scathophaga [misspelled later by Meigen (1826) as Scatophaga], for scathophagid dung flies: i. e., hairy species with a longer and deflexed postpedicel. Fabricius consistently classified species of scathophagid dung flies in the genus Musca Linnaeus.	en	Michelsen, Verner, O’Hara, James E. (2014): A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J. C. Fabricius “ borrowed ” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 73-81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3873.1.6
