Philornis angustifrons (Loew, 1861) Hylemyia angustifrons Loew, 1861: 41. Syntypes male and female, not found (not in MCZ or ZMHB). Type-locality: Cuba. Described in the genus Hylemyia by Loew (1861), this species was based on material from Cuba. According to Carvalho et al. (2005), syntypes (male and female) were not found in MCZ or ZMHB. This species has been mistakenly recorded from Argentina by Garcia (1952). In synonymy with it is Mydaea anomala (Jaennicke, 1867), originally described as Mesembrina anomala, also from Cuba. This species is not the same as Mydaea anomala of Nielsen (1913) (= Philornis anomala of Aldrich 1923), which was described as P. nielseni by Dodge (1968). Both Stein (1918) and Dodge and Aitken (1968) mentioned that this species shows considerable intraspecific variation, e.g., in size and colour and, “likewise there is much variation in the puparia of such species as trinitensis, sanguinis and deceptivus, in general the larger puparia are dark brown with a small deep pit, whereas the smaller puparia are light brown with the pit broad and shallow (Dodge & Aitken 1968: 135). Other references to the names angustifrons and anomala in Argentina refer to anomala of Nielsen (1911, 1913). Even the synonymy of P. angustifrons (Loew) with anomala Nielsen was a confused interpretation by Aldrich (1923). The name P. angustifrons of Garcia (1952) also does not correspond to this species. He used this name, following Aldrich’s (1923) synonymy. This synonymy must not be accepted. Aldrich (1923) used Nielsen’s (1911, 1913) figures to represent the posterior spiracular slits of the puparia of M. torquans Nielsen and M. anomala of Nielsen (not Jaennicke) respectively. But on page 307, when discussing the synonymy with angustifrons Loew, he used the name anomala referring to M. anomala Jaennicke and not M. anomala of Nielsen. This is clear because he mentioned that “both species are described from Cuba, clearly referring to angustifrons Loew and anomala Jaennicke. Also, M. anomala of Nielsen 1913 (slits figured in his Fig. 3) could not be P. angustifrons Loew, as the posterior spiracular slits of this species are very sinuous, much more similar to those of P. pici, illustrated in his Fig. 5. Returning to Garcia’s (1952) angustifrons, his description, based on three females and one male (taken as larvae from a young chicken) from Monte Bello (Tucumán), is not very detailed, but differs from the true P. angustifrons in some aspects such as general colour of the thorax, r-m cross vein with a small mark and the large frons of the female with almost parallel margins. He described the female, but his Figure 1 (op. cit.: 279) shows the head of a male that is also not of P. angustifrons (as also observed by Dodge 1968). By mistake he mentioned the author of this species as (Jaenn., 1866) (see also Dodge 1968). Dodge (1968) considered that Garcia’s (1952) angustifrons could be anomala of Nielsen (1913), but the male head illustrated in his Figure 1 “fits neither nielseni nor angustifrons (p. 158). He doubtfully included Philornis angustifrons (Jaenn., 1866) of Garcia (1952) in synonymy with P. nielseni. Dodge and Aitken (1968) redescribed and Couri (1984) diagnosed P. angustifrons. The species shows intra-specific variation in colour, size, puparial concavity (depth and rugosity) and male surstyli (Dodge & Aitken 1968; Couri 1984).

Published as part of Couri, Márcia S., Antoniazzi, Leandro R., Beldomenico, Pablo & Quiroga, Martin, 2009, Argentine Philornis Meinert species (Diptera: Muscidae) with synonymic notes, pp. 52-62 in Zootaxa 2261 on pages 56-57, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.190768