54. Statinia [Statinia] Meigen, 1800: 36. CURRENT STATUS: Unavailable name; work suppressed for the purposes of zoological nomenclature by action of I.C.Z.N. (1963: 339 [Opinion 678]); treated under Coremacera Rondani, 1856 [teste Rozkošný & Elberg (1984: 178)]. Statinia Latreille, 1802: 460 ORIGINALLY INCLUDED SPECIES: Musca marginata Fabricius, 1775. TYPE SPECIES: Musca marginata Fabricius, 1775, by monotypy. CURRENT STATUS: Senior synonym of Coremacera Rondani, 1856. New Synonymy. FAMILY: SCIOMYZIDAE. REMARKS: Statinia was originally proposed by Meigen (1800: 36) without included species and later made unavailable by the suppression of the entire work for the purposes of zoological nomenclature by action of the I.C.Z.N. (1963: 339 [Opinion 678]). Latreille (1802: 460) was the first subsequent usage of Statinia after Meigen (1800) where Statinia was placed in synonymy with Musca Linnaeus, 1758, sensu lato [“ tetanocerae ”] and included the single species Musca marginata Fabricius, 1775, which is the type species by monotypy. Statinia was made available by subsequent usage as a valid name in Hendel (1908: 64). Hendel (1924: 211) designated Musca marginata Fabricius, 1775 as type species, but this was unnecessary since Latreille’s (1802) treatment of Statinia included only one species, thus Musca marginata Fabricius is the type species by monotypy. Musca marginata Fabricius, 1775 is currently treated as a species of Coremacera Rondani, 1856 [teste Rozkošný & Elberg (1984: 178)], which makes Statinia Latreille, 1802 a senior synonym of Coremacera Rondani, 1856, n. syn. Melville (1960: 38–39), who considered Statinia synonymous with Dictya Meigen, 1803, gave a detailed summary of the problems surrounding the identity of Statinia based on the belief that Hendel (1908: 64) was the first inclusion of species in this genus. Hendel listed Musca cucularia Linnaeus, 1767 [as “ M. cucullaria ... F.”] and Musca umbrarum Linnaeus, 1758 [as “ umbrarum F.”], the concept of which caused Statinia to be treated in synonymy with Dictya Meigen, 1803. Acceptance of Statinia Latreille, 1802 as senior to Coremacera Rondani, 1856 may threaten the stability and nomenclature of the younger name. If this is found to be true, an application to the ICZN Commission to suppress Statinia Latreille, 1802 in favor of Coremacera Rondani, 1856 may be warranted.

Published as part of Evenhuis, Neal L. & Pape, Thomas, 2017, Battling the un-dead: the status of the Diptera genus-group names originally proposed in Johann Wilhelm Meigen's 1800 pamphlet, pp. 1-74 in Zootaxa 4275 (1) on page 52, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4275.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/804234