Open Access
Translator Disclaimer
21 October 2021 An exploratory survey and assessment of the hoverfly diversity (Diptera: Syrphidae) from the Pyrenees of Girona, Spain
Antonio Ricarte, Zorica Nedeljković, Ma Ángeles Marcos-García
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Syrphidae are pollinators, pest predators and decomposers in European ecosystems. Camprodon (Girona province, Spain) is a valley with rich vegetation and high habitat diversity in the eastern Pyrenees. However, hoverfly biodiversity in this valley was poorly known. To explore the high potential of this area for Syrphidae, a survey with hand-net was undertaken in July/August 2020 in the valley. The list of Syrphidae species from the valley increases to 88, whilst that of the Girona province now extends to 119 species. Chrysotoxum lessonae is reported for the first time from the Iberian Peninsula. The specimens of Xylota tarda and Cheilosia hypena () represent the first documented records of these species for the Iberian Peninsula and Spain, respectively; i.e. these two species were known to occur in the Iberian Peninsula and Spain but without further locality details. A total of 19 species were new to the region of Catalonia and 23 to the Girona province. Cheilosia was the genus with the highest number of species recorded, as expected from the combination of mountains, diversity of forest vegetation, and presence of rivers/streams of the Camprodon valley. Faunistic results from this fieldwork are relevant to knowledge of Diptera from Catalonia, a region of Spain where this insect family is understudied.

INTRODUCTION

As popular pollinators and pest predators (Rojo et al., 2003; Marshall, 2012; Doyle et al., 2020), Syrphidae are often surveyed at the local scale (e.g. Sommaggio & Corazza, 2006; Sánchez-Heredia et al., 2017; Miličić et al., 2018; Lorenzo et al., 2020). Local surveys are relevant to the understanding of biodiversity in complex ecosystems and contribute to knowledge of regional species lists. Regional lists provide a framework for expert systems to assess the conservation of habitats (Speight & Castella, 2001; Monteil, 2010; Speight et al., 2020).

The massif of the Pyrenees extends east-west over 440 km, forming a natural border between France and Spain, in southwestern Europe. With 19 000 km2 and a maximum altitude of 3404 m, the Pyrenees are a complex ecosystem with many mountains, U-shaped glaciated valleys, rivers, lakes and a diverse flora and fauna. The Pyrenees can be divided into three parts, Eastern, Central, and Western. North to south, they are divided into the axial or medial Pyrenees, and the pre-Pyrenean or external mountains (Guixé & Llobet, 2016). The north slope of the Pyrenees (France, and the ‘Vall d’Aran’ in Spain) is more humid, less continental, and with typically Eurosiberian forest, whilst the south slope (Spain) has a Mediterranean influence, with less diverse and more reduced forest (Vázquez & Fernández-Prieto, 2002). In Spain, the Pyrenees are divided into five provinces, with the easternmost part in the Girona province, Catalonia (Ricarte & Marcos-García, 2017).

The studies of Diptera in Catalonia are scattered, both temporally and geographically, and Pyrenean hoverflies are not an exception. Apart from the consequences for our ecological understanding of the Pyrenees, this scattered knowledge has also prevented the popularisation of hoverflies, as shown by their absence from field guides to the regional fauna (Guixé & Llobet, 2016). Cuní (1881) was the first to record hoverflies from the Catalonian Pyrenees. Diptera were poorly studied in Catalonia throughout the 20th century (Pujade-Villar, 2011), with only a little fieldwork undertaken in the Pyrenees to collect hoverflies (van Doesburg, 1951; Leclercq, 1971; Lucas, 1976). The 21st century brought new hoverfly records to light from the Catalonian Pyrenees, but most of these were based on specimens collected earlier, usually in the 1970s (Marcos-García et al., 2007, 2011; van Steenis & Lucas, 2011; Ricarte & Nedeljković, 2020). Camprodon is one of the most popular valleys of the eastern Pyrenees, with diverse vegetation and habitats (Sacasas-i-Lluís, 2009). The first hoverfly records from this valley are those of the Rev. José Andreu from 1926. However, just over a dozen species were reported from this valley prior to the present sampling (Andreu, 1926; Gil Collado, 1930; Lucas, 1976; Barkalov & Ståhls, 1997; Marcos-García et al., 2007, 2011; van Steenis & Lucas, 2011; Ricarte & Nedeljković, 2020). The aim of the present study was to improve our knowledge of the hoverflies from the Girona province by undertaking an exploratory survey and faunistic assessment in its Pyrenean part (Camprodon valley) and reviewing all the available literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study area

Camprodon valley (‘Valle de Camprodón’ in Spanish) is located in the axial eastern Pyrenees. This hilly valley is in the eastern part of the Ripollès region, Girona province (abbreviated as ‘GI’ hereinafter), Spain. The climate is typical Pyrenean, humid and rainy. The Ter river, which rises at high altitudes in this valley, is also the main water course in it. All along the valley, there are some scattered small villages and there is a ski resort at about 2000 m asl. The diverse vegetation of the Camprodon valley is dominated by a mosaic of woodlands and grasslands as a result of a long history of human use. The montane and subalpine altitudinal zones are represented in the valley. Montane vegetation (700-1600 m asl) consists mainly of deciduous forest of Quercus spp. and Fagus sylvestris L., as well as forest of red pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). The dominant species in the understory of the montane forest is the common box (Buxus sempervirens L.). Montane vegetation of riversides includes Salix, Populus and Alnus trees. Subalpine vegetation (1600-2300 m asl) is dominated by forests of black pine (Pinus uncinata Ramond ex A. DC.) that are usually more open at higher altitudes, with alpenrose (Rhododendron ferrugineum L.) in the understory. Grasslands are also typical of the subalpine zone (Sacasas-i-Lluís, 2009). The sampling sites of the present study within the Camprodon valley are detailed in Table 1. Sites belong to four different villages, Camprodon, Llanars, Setcases, and Vilallonga de Ter.

Fieldwork and hoverfly identification

Adult hoverflies were collected by Antonio Ricarte and Zorica Nedeljković using hand-nets, from 29 July to 3 August 2020. Vegetation and especially flowers (e.g. Heracleum sphondylium L., Hypericum sp., Eupatorium cannabinum L., Knautia sp., Pastinaca sp.) were inspected for hoverflies in sunny areas, and also on some hilltops (S3, S14). Specimens were kept in tubes in the freezer until defrosting in the lab for preparation. Specimens were pinned and labelled following the usual techniques (Galante & Marcos-García, 2004). A bar code label was assigned to each specimen and the information databased in an Excel file. Bar code numbers were written for each specimen (as a single code) or series of specimens (as a range of codes) in the examined material. Every code starts with ‘CEUA’ plus a number of zeros and then the actual code number (e.g. CEUA00050300), but only the number is indicated in the list of examined material.

Specimens were identified to the species level by Antonio Ricarte and Zorica Nedeljković, except otherwise stated. The literature used for identification is Nielsen (1970), Violovitsh (1974), Dušek & Láska (1976), Goeldlin de Tiefenau (1976), Marcos-García & Láska (1983), Vujić (1992), Vujić & Šimić (1995-1998), Goeldlin de Tiefenau (1996), Barkalov & Ståhls (1997), Verlinden (1999), Vujić (1999), van Steenis (2000), Hippa et al. (2001), Sommaggio (2001), Claussen & Ståhls (2007), Ståhls et al. (2008), Barkalov (2009), Bartsch et al. (2009a, b), Ricarte et al. (2010), van Veen (2010), van Steenis & Lucas (2011), Nedeljković et al. (2013), Vujić et al. (2013), Haarto & Ståhls (2014), van Steenis et al. (2016), Speight & Sarthou (2017), Vujić et al. (2017), Nedeljković et al. (2018), and van Steenis et al. (2020). When it was necessary to confirm the species identification, male genitalia were dissected with entomological pins. They were cleared in a hot solution of KOH for up to 5 min, immersed in acetic acid to remove excess KOH, washed in 70% alcohol, and stored in microvials containing glycerine. When specimens were dry, they were first relaxed in a humid chamber before genitalia removal. All specimens are deposited in the CEUA-CIBIO collection, University of Alicante, Spain. Hoverflies were photographed in the field by Antonio Ricarte (except where otherwise stated) with a camera Canon® PowerShot SX730 HS. A pinned specimen of Chrysotoxum Meigen, 1803 was illustrated (Fig. 1) with photos produced as stacks of individual images made with a camera (Leica DFC 450) attached to a binocular stereomicroscope (Leica M205 C). Stacks were made in Leica Application Suite X (LAS X) ®, v. 3.0.4.16529.

Taxonomic and faunistic assessments

For the collected hoverflies, the faunistic novelty of each species (Appendix) was assessed on the basis of Ricarte & Marcos-García (2017) plus all other subsequent faunistic references. The Iberian Peninsula is here interpreted as the unit encompassing the mainland parts of Spain and Portugal together, plus Andorra. First documented records are also indicated in order to make locality details available for those species that had imprecise records in previous literature. A full list of material examined is provided for each species by using the site codes of Table 1. Collection dates are written in the examined material lists only for the specimens caught in S6 and S12, because these sites were visited on more than one day. For the taxonomic classification of the species collected, the arrangement of subfamilies used – indicated after each species name – follows Mengual et al. (2015). Genus and species names generally follow Speight (2020).

Table 1.

Sampling sites in the eastern Pyrenees of Girona province (Spain) during July/August 2020 field work. The dates when each site was visited is also presented.

img-z3-2_381.gif

Fig. 1.

Chrysotoxum lessonae male, from Camprodon valley, Girona province, Spain. (A) Dorsal view. (B) Lateral view. Scale bar = 2 mm.

img-z3-3_381.jpg

Checklist of Girona hoverflies

The species collected in this study are also presented in the broader frame of an updated checklist of the hoverflies from Girona province. Localities and references are provided for every species in the checklist. The following localities are listed, based on both literature and the present study: L1, Arbucias; L2, Blanes; L3, Caldes de Malavella; L4, Camprodon; L5, Caralps; L6, Cerdaña; L7, Empalme; L8, Figueras; L9, Flassa; L10, La Bisbal; L11, La Molina; L12, Llanars; L13, Massanas; L14, Massanet de la Selva ‘Maçanet-Massanes station’; L15, Mollo; L16, Nuria; L17, Pals; L18, Puigcerdà; L19, Ribas; L20, Ribas de Freser; L21, Rosas; L22, San Cristóbal de Tosas; L23, San Juan de las Abadesas; L24, San Marsal; L25, Sant Ilari de Sacalm; L26, Sarriá; L27, Setcases; L28, Sils; L29, Torroella; L30, Viladrau; L31, Vilallonga de Ter; L32, ‘Between Campodron and Setcases’; L33, 13 km south to Girona city. Locality L4 includes the sampling site S1 of the present study; L12 includes S2, S3, S4, S5; L27 includes S6, S7, S8; L31 includes S10, S11, S12, S13, S14 (Table 1).

The following references were reviewed (numbers are used in the checklist to identify each individual reference): 1, Cuní (1880); 2, Cuní (1881); 3, Cuní (1885); 4, Antiga, 1888; 5, Andreu (1926); 6, Gil Collado (1930); 7, Leclercq (1963); 8, Leclercq (1971); 9, Lucas (1974); 10, Lucas (1976); 11, Goeldlin de Tiefenau (1989); 12, Barkalov & Ståhls (1997); 13, Marcos-García et al. (2002); 14, Marcos-García et al. (2007); 15, van Eck (2010); 16, Marcos-García et al. (2011); 17, van Steenis & Lucas (2011); 18, Álvarez-Fidalgo et al., 2018; 19, van Steenis et al. (2020); 20, Ricarte & Nedeljković (2020). Marcos-García et al. (1998) is not included in the list of references because it does not provide information on the localities within provinces. Dirickx (1994) also omits locality details for species but does provide maps with distribution points, so is not cited in this checklist, except for comments on the distribution of certain species.

Regarding specific references, the following questions should be noted: a) Cuní (1881) reported hoverflies from the Spanish Cerdaña, which is divided between the Lleida and Girona provinces and he did not specify where each species was collected. Since he was based on Puigcerdà (Girona) for fieldwork, we assume here that all species belong to GI. b) Gil Collado (1930) reports hoverflies from ‘Ribas’ and ‘Rivas’, one from Madrid (Rivas?) and other from GI (Ribas? i.e. Ribas de Freser? Ribas valley?), however both names are written as ‘Ribas’ in the locality index of Gil Collado (1930), and Ribas/ Rivas also appear to be inconsistently used throughout his monograph. Thus, we include Ribas in the present checklist when there were enough grounds to believe that the species was collected in the Ribas of GI.

All species are numbered and presented in alphabetical order, including the species reported in the present work (indicated as ‘present study’). Genus and species names in the checklist follow Speight (2020), which can be consulted together with Peck (1988) for authority and year of each taxon. Where species names used in the historical literature under review have been superceded, those are given after the current name and are preceded by (=).

RESULTS

New hoverfly records from the Camprodon valley

Baccha elongata (Fabricius, 1775) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108852; 1 male; S5. – 108851; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020.

  • Ceriana conopsoides (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108188; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020; on flowers of Heracleum sphondylium.

  • Cheilosia aerea Dufour, 1848 (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108792; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020.

  • Cheilosia barbata Loew, 1857 (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108791, 108790, 108809; 3 males; 108801, 108814, 108816-108818; 5 females; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108804-108808; 5 males; 108800, 108820; 2 females; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108803; 1 male; 108813; female; 02.08.2020. – 108812, 108819; 2 females; S9. – 108811; 1 female; S10.

  • Cheilosia hypena Becker, 1894 (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108320; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108325-108328; 4 males; S6; 108321-108324; 4 females; S6; 31.07.2020; 108778, 108779; 2 males; S6; 02.08.2020. – 108310; 1 male; 108329; 1 female; S5. – 108777; 1 female; S1. – 108776 (1 female); S11.

  • Cheilosia illustrata (Harris, 1776) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108770; 1 male; 108772, 108789; 2 females; S6; 30.07.2020; on flowers of Heracleum sphondilium. – 108771; 1 male; S6; 02.08.2020; on flowers of Heracleum sphondylium.

  • Cheilosia laticornis Rondani, 1857 (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108785; 1 male; 108784; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020.

  • Cheilosia latifrons (Zetterstedt, 1843) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108810; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108829; 1 female; S6; 02.08.2020; 108828; 1 female; S9. – 108802; 1 female; S1.

  • Cheilosia longula (Zetterstedt, 1838) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 08773; 1 male; S11; det. I. Ballester.

  • Cheilosia proxima (Zetterstedt, 1843) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108788; 1 male; S3.

  • Cheilosia scutellata (Fallén, 1817) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108826; 1 male; 108824; 1 female; S5. – 108827, 1 male; S4. – 108825; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020.

  • Cheilosia variabilis (Panzer, 1798) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108787; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108786; 1 female; S7.

  • Cheilosia vernalis (Fallén, 1817) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108794, 108795; 2 males; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108793; 1 female; S12.

  • Cheilosia vicina (Zetterstedt, 1849) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108775; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108774; 1 female; S7.

  • Cheilosia vulpina (Meigen, 1822) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108780; 1 male; S3. – 108798; 1 male; S5. – 108797; 1 female; S4. – 108799; 1 male; 108796; 1 female; S13.– 108783, 108782; 2 males; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108781; 1 male; 108802; 1 female; S1; 01.08.2020.

  • Chrysogaster solstitialis (Fallén, 1817) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108234; 1 male; 108269, 108268; 2 females; S3. – 108236; 1 male; 10830-108232, 108240; 4 females; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108237, 108233; 2 males; 10841-108244; 4 females; S6; 31.07.2020; 108235; 1 male; S10. – 108267; 1 female; S9.

  • Chrysotoxum arcuatum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae) = Chrysotoxum fasciatum (Müller, 1764)

  • Examined material: 108548; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020.

  • Chrysotoxum bicinctum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108549; 1 male; S11. – 108530; 1 female; S9.

  • Chrysotoxum elegans Loew, 1841 (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108546; 1 male; S4; 108547; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108545; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108544; 1 male; S13.

  • Chrysotoxum festivum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108295; 1 female; S9.

  • Chrysotoxum lessonae Giglio Tos, 1890 (Syrphinae) (Fig. 1)

  • Examined material: 108296-108298; 3 males; S12.

  • Chrysotoxum volaticum Séguy, 1961 (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108531; 1 female; S14.

  • Dasysyrphus albostriatus (Fallén, 1817) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108887; 1 female; S11; 108888; 1 male; S12. – 108885; 1 male; 108886; 1 female; S9.

  • Episyrphus balteatus (de Geer, 1776) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108834; 1 female; S5. – 108833; 1 male; S11.

  • Eristalinus sepulchralis (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108208; 1 female; S1.

  • Eristalinus taeniops (Wiedemann, 1818) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108206; 1 male; S9.

  • Eristalis arbustorum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108170; 1 male; S13.

  • Eristalis interrupta (Poda, 1761) (Eristalinae) = Eristalis nemorum Linnaeus, 1758

  • Examined material: 108211; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020; 108212; 1 male; 01.08.2020. – 108149; 1 female; S5. – 108210; 1 female; S11. – 108142; 1 female; S12.

  • Eristalis jugorum Egger, 1858 (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108152; 1 female; S8. – 108167; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108311; 1 male; S6; 02.08.2020. – 108141, 108312, 108313; 3 females; S10.

  • Eristalis lineata (Harris, 1776) (Eristalinae) = Eristalis horticola (de Geer, 1776)

  • Examined material: 108133; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020.

  • Eristalis pertinax (Scopoli, 1763) (Eristalinae) (Fig. 2A)

  • Examined material: 108143, 108144, 108148; 3 males; 108147; 1 female; S4. – 108150, 108216, 108215; 3 males; S1. – 108169; 1 male; S10. – 108158, 108214; 2 males; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108213; 1 male; 108140; 1 female; S6; 02.08.2020.

  • Fig. 2.

    Hoverfly species from Camprodon valley, Girona, Spain. (A) Eristalis pertinax, male, flowers of Eupatorium cannabinum, Setcases. (B) Ferdinandea cuprea, female, flowers of Hypericum sp., Vilallonga de Ter. (C) Milesia crabroniformis, male, Camprodon. Photos A, B by Antonio Ricarte, C by M. Carbonell.

    img-z6-1_381.jpg

    Eristalis similis (Fallén, 1817) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108131; 1 male; S3. – 108130; 1 female; S5. – 108145, 108146; 2 males; S4. – 108156; 1 male; 108137; 1 female; S7. – 108134, 108135, 108153, 108157, 108159; 5 males; 108136; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108155; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108151; 1 female; S1. – 108168; 1 male; S12; 01.08.2020. – 108543; 1 male; S14.

  • Eristalis tenax (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108132, 108120; 2 males; S3; 108138; 1 male; 108154; 1 female; S7. – 108139; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020.

  • Eumerus grandis Meigen, 1822 (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108275; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108274; 1 male; S6; 02.08.2020.

  • Eumerus ornatus Meigen, 1822 (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108229; 1 male; 108222, 108223; 2 females; S12. – 108227; 1 male; 08221; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108224-108226, 108228; 4 males; S6; 31.07.2020.

  • Eupeodes corollae (Fabricius, 1794) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108832; 1 male; S7. – 108830, 108831; 2 females; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108849; 1 female; S11. – 108848; 1 female; S9.

  • Eupeodes luniger (Meigen, 1822) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108844; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108842, 108843; 2 males; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108841; 1 female; S11. – 108840; 1 male; S9.

  • Eupeodes latifasciatus (Macquart, 1829) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108847; 1 male; S6; 02.08.2020.

  • Ferdinandea cuprea (Scopoli, 1763) (Eristalinae) (Fig. 2B)

  • Examined material: 108204, 108200; 2 males; 108218; 1 female; S12; 02.08.2020. – 108202; 1 female; S1; 01.08.2020; 108201; 1 male; S10. – 108219, 108217; 2 females; S9. – 108203; 1 male; S6; 02.08.2020.

  • Helophilus pendulus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108162; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108161; 1 male; S4. – 108160, 108179; 2 males; 108178; 1 female; S5. – 108178; 1 female; S11.

  • Lapposyrphus lapponicus (Zetterstedt, 1838) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108845; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108846; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020.

  • Leucozona glaucia (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108884; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020; on flowers of Heracleum sphondylium. – 108883; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020; on flowers of Heracleum sphondylium.

  • Melangyna compositarum (Verrall, 1873) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108869; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020.

  • Melangyna umbellatarum (Fabricius, 1794) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108850; 1 female; S10.

  • Melanostoma mellinum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108520; 1 male; S3. – 108523, 108522; 2 females; S2. – 108539; 1 male; 108521; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020.

  • Melanostoma scalare (Fabricius, 1794) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108538; 1 male; 108533; 1 female; S3. – 108535; 1 male; 108534; 1 female; S5. – 108536, 108537; 2 males; 108532; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020.

  • Meligramma cincta (Fallén, 1817) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108868; 1 female; S7; 30.07.2020. – 108867; 1 female; S8. – 1088661; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020.

  • Meliscaeva auricollis (Meigen, 1822) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108863; 1 male; S2. – 108860, 108870, 108878; 3 males; 108861, 108862, 108871, 108876, 108879; 5 females; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108874; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108875; 1 female; S6; 01.08.2020. – 108877, 108889; 2 males; S7. – 108873, 108872; 2 females; S8.

  • Meliscaeva cinctella (Zetterstedt, 1843) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108865; 1 female; S7. – 108864; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020.

  • Myathropa florea (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108165; 1 male; 108166, 108164; 2 females; S4. – 108163; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108205; 1 male; S1.

  • Orthonevra nobilis (Fallén, 1817) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108263; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108265, 108264; 2 males; S6; 31.07.2020.

  • Paragus haemorrhous Meigen, 1822 (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108836; 1 male; S12; 02.08.2020. – 108835; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020.

  • Paragus pecchiolii Rondani, 1857 (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108837; 1 male; S12; 02.08.2020.

  • Paragus tibialis (Fallén, 1817) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108821-108823, 108838, 108839; 5 males; S3.

  • Parasyrphus vittiger (Zetterstedt, 1843) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108510, 108524; 2 males; 108525-108529; 5 females; S7.

  • Pipiza festiva Meigen, 1822 (Pipizinae)

  • Examined material: 108273; 1 male; S9.

  • Pipiza noctiluca (Linnaeus, 1758) (Pipizinae)

  • Examined material: 108272; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020.

  • Pipizella viduata (Linnaeus, 1758) (Pipizinae)

  • Examined material: 108288; 1 male; 108287, 108285, 108284; 3 females; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108286; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108282, 108281; 2 males; 108283, 108280, 108299; 3 females; S10.

  • Platycheirus albimanus (Fabricius, 1781) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108515; 1 male; S7. – 108514; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108513; 1 male; S6; 02.08.2020. – 108511; 1 female; S13. – 108512; 1 male; S9.

  • Scaeva dignota (Rondani, 1857) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108882; 1 male; S9.

  • Scaeva pyrastri (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108516; 1 female; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108518; 1 female; S14. – 108517; 1 female; S9.

  • Scaeva selenitica (Meigen, 1822) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108519; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108880; 1 female; S6; 02.08.2020. – 108881; 1 female; S9.

  • Sericomyia bombiforme (Fallén, 1810) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108172, 108171; 2 males; S6; 30.07.2020. – 108180; 1 male; 108181; 1 female; S12, on flowers of Knautia sp.; 02.08.2020.

  • Sphaerophoria scripta (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108854; 1 female; S2. – 108853; 1 male; S5.

  • Sphegina elegans Schummel, 1843 (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108266; 1 male; S10; 01.08.2020.

  • Spilomyia manicata (Rondani, 1865) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108189; 1 male; S6; 30.07.2020; on flowers of Heracleum sphondilium.

  • Syritta pipiens (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108198, 108199; 2 males; S3; 108197; 1 male; S5.

  • Syrphus ribesii (Linnaeus, 1758) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108315; 1 male; S3; 108316; 1 female; S7. – 108314; 1 female; S6; 02.08.2020.

  • Syrphus torvus Osten-Sacken, 1875 (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108302, 108301; 2 males; 108304-108306; 3 females; S7. – 108300, 108317, 108318; 3 males; 108303, 108319; 2 females; S6; 30.07.2020.

  • Syrphus vitripennis Meigen, 1822 (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108307; 1 male; S4. – 108308; 1 female; S7. – 108309; 1 female; S13.

  • Triglyphus primus Loew, 1840 (Pipizinae)

  • Examined material: See Ricarte & Nedeljković (2020).

  • Volucella bombylans (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108177; 1 female; S3.

  • Volucella inanis (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108176; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108187; 1 male; S6; 01.08.2020. – 108185, 108184; 2 males; S10. – 108186; 1 male; S12; 02.08.2020.

  • Volucella pellucens (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108173; 1 male; 108175; 1 female; S8; 108174; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108182; 1 female; S12; 02.08.2020.

  • Volucella zonaria (Poda, 1761) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108183; 1 male; S6; 01.08.2020.

  • Xanthandrus comtus (Harris, 1776) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108858, 108859; 2 females; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108857; 1 female; S6; 02.08.2020.–108856; 1 male; 108855; 1 female; S12; 02.08.2020.

  • Xanthogramma citrofasciatum (de Geer, 1776) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108292; 1 female; S12; 02.08.2020. – 108294, 108293; 2 males; S14.

  • Xanthogramma dives (Rondani, 1857) (Syrphinae)

  • Examined material: 108290; 1 male; S10. – 108291; 1 male; S9.

  • Xylota segnis (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108191, 108195; 2 males; 108194; 1 female; S6; 31.07.2020. – 108192, 108193; 2 males; S6; 02.08.2020.

  • Xylota sylvarum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108196; 1 male; S6; 31.07.2020.

  • Xylota tarda Meigen, 1822 (Eristalinae)

  • Examined material: 108190; 1 female; S9. – 108209; 1 male; S12; 02.08.2020.

  • Taxonomic and faunistic assessment of the new hoverfly records from Camprodon valley

    Excluding the records of Triglyphus primus Loew, 1840, which represented the first finding of this genus from Spain (Ricarte & Nedeljković, 2020), one (Chrysotoxum lessonae) species is new to the Iberian Peninsula, 19 are new to Catalonia, and 23 to GI. First documented records from Spain and the Iberian Peninsula are given for Cheilosia hypena and Xylota tarda, respectively, meaning that their presence in Spain and the Iberian Peninsula was previously reported in the literature, but without locality details (Appendix).

    A total of 81 hoverfly species of 38 genera were identified. The two main subfamilies (Eristalinae and Syrphinae) had a similar number of genera recorded (16 and 19 respectively). Of all genera, 34 were represented by only 1-3 species, while the genus Cheilosia Meigen, 1822 had the highest number of species in the study (13 spp.), followed by Eristalis Latreille, 1804 (7 spp.) and Chrysotoxum Meigen, 1803 (6 spp.).

    Taking into consideration the altitudinal zoning indicated in the study area section and Table 1, most species represented in the study were absent from the subalpine zone, where the only exclusive species was Parasyrphus vittiger. All species except P. vittiger were found in the montane zone. Twelve species were shared between the two sampled altitudinal zones (Fig. 3).

    Hoverfly checklist of the Girona province (Table 2)

    See the meaning of the locality and reference codes in the Material and Methods section.

    img-z8-19_381.gif

    Continued

    img-z9-3_381.gif

    Continued

    img-AdsNx_381.gif

    Continued

    img-z10-1_381.gif

    Continued

    img-z10-19_381.gif

    Continued

    img-z11-1_381.gif

    Continued

    img-z11-2_381.gif

    Fig. 3.

    Distribution of hoverfly species by altitudinal zones (subalpine and montane) from the catch in Camprodon valley, eastern Pyrenees (Spain) in July/August 2020. For each zone, an on-site picture of the representative landscape/vegetation is shown. Species shared between zones are listed on left. Species exclusive of each zone on right.

    img-z9-1_381.jpg

    Doubtful records

    Platycheirus europaeus Goeldlin de Tiefenau, Maibach & Speight, 1990

    Notes. Speight (2020) states that P. europaeus is present in Spain, without further precision. Dirickx (1994) provides a distribution map for this species with a presence dot in Catalonia, but the position of this dot is also imprecise.

    Sphegina clavata (Scopoli, 1763) & Sphegina clunipes (Fallén, 1816)

    Notes. Thompson & Torp (1986) and Dirickx (1994) each provide a distribution map with a presence dot in Catalonia for these two species. The position of this dot is imprecise, but is likely to be within the province of Girona.

    Sphegina elegans

    Notes. Thompson & Torp (1986) provide a distribution map with a presence dot in Catalonia, very close to the French/ Spanish border, and apparently in the Girona province. However, Dirickx (1994) provides a different map without the above-mentioned dot, but with another dot clearly placed on the French side of the Pyrenees. Provenance data for examined material would be necessary to discern whether the dots in Thompson & Torp (1986) and Dirickx (1994) are the same or not.

    DISCUSSION

    As a result of this short survey in the Camprodon valley, 81 hoverfly species were identified, including T. primus, the discovery of which was reported by Ricarte & Nedeljković (2020). The number of known species to this valley now stands at 85, plus Milesia crabroniformis (Fabricius, 1775), which is known to the authors of the present paper by a photo taken in Camprodon, on 4 October 2020, by M. Carbonell (Fig. 2C). In addition, there are also records of a species of Merodon Meigen, 1803 and a species of Rhingia Scopoli, 1763 collected in the course of this fieldwork but not included in the Results because they are still under taxonomic scrutiny (Ricarte et al., in prep.). In total, 88 species are known for the Camprodon valley. The checklist of hoverflies from the Girona province expands from 73 to 119 species as a result of the new records from Camprodon valley. Girona is now one of the best-known Spanish provinces in terms of number of hoverfly species recorded (Ricarte & Marcos-García, 2017).

    Leclercq (1971) provided records of 49 hoverflies collected in the Pyrenees, mainly of the Huesca province, from July/August, i.e. the same period of the year when our sampling took place. More than half (55%) of the species reported by Leclercq (1971) and all genera were shared with our 2020 list. Cheilosia was the genus with the highest number of species reported by Leclercq (1971). From the seven Cheilosia species reported by him, just one was shared with the 2020 sampling in Camprodon. On the one hand, differences in species composition might be due to the fact that many species of Leclercq (1971) were collected in early July, whilst the 2020 sampling was in late July. On the other hand, detected differences in species composition may actually respond to differences between the surveyed Pyrenean valleys and habitats of Huesca and Girona. Specifically, Cheilosia hoverflies are known to be sensible to changes in the woodland landscape (Popov et al., 2017), in part because their larvae, according to species, feed on different plants and fungi (Rotheray, 1993).

    From the 81 species reported from the Camprodon valley in 2020, eight were saproxylic, i.e. with larvae dependent on trees (Ceriana Rafinesque, 1815, Ferdinandea Rondani, 1844, Myathropa Rondani, 1845, Sphegina Sack, 1928, Spilomyia Meigen, 1803, and Xylota Meigen, 1822). The proportion of saproxylic species (11%) is unexpectedly low from the Camprodon valley, where forests form a significant element of the vegetation. Although the present study only provides a partial overview of the hoverfly biodiversity of the Camprodon valley, we suggest that land use changes due to the expansion of urban areas and the road network, as well as promotion of agricultural and tourism activities may have had an effect in the woodlands of this popular valley, with reduction of forest cover (mainly in the lower parts of the valley, and around the ski resort), and mature trees becoming scarcer and more isolated; mature trees are crucial for the development of a rich saproxylic community (Micó, 2018).

    Hoverfly genera with aquatic larvae such as Eristalis Latreille, 1804 (Rotheray, 1993) appear to flourish in the montane ecosystem of the valley (e.g. 7 species of Eristalis), where water courses are abundant and water flow is slower than at higher altitudes. In these conditions, breeding sites for Eristalis are abundant. However, in the subalpine zone, only Eristalis similis and the cosmopolitan Eristalis tenax were reported, possibly due to the lower availability of breeding sites in this altitudinal zone of the valley. In the subalpine zone, water courses are smaller and their water flow is faster, due to steeper slopes (pers. obs. of Antonio Ricarte). The only hoverfly species found exclusively in the subalpine was P. vittiger (Fig. 3), being in accordance with its preferred environment, the conifer forest, which is dominant at these altitudes (Sacasas-i-Lluís, 2009). The larva of P. vittiger feeds mainly on conifer aphids and this is why its presence is correlated with conifers. Nonetheless, P. vittiger can occasionally be found in deciduous forest (Speight, 2020).

    The genus with the highest number of species found was Cheilosia. Hoverflies of this genus prefer mountains, forests and the proximity of rivers and streams (Vujić, 1996), just as in the Camprodon valley. The only species of Cheilosia found in the subalpine zone were C. variabilis and C. vicina, both already recorded from the Pyrenees of Huesca province (Leclercq, 1971; Marcos-García, 1985). The species C. vicina belongs to the subgenus Nigrocheilosia Shatalkin, 1975, which is typical of high altitudes (Vujić, 1996). Cheilosia variabilis is an abundant species in southern parts of its range and occurs in a wide variety of forest types (Vujić, 1996). In addition, the presence of Cheilosia hypena is here confirmed from the Spanish Pyrenees. Speight (2020) mentioned that this species was present in this massif but there was no published record from Spain known to us. The finding of Cheilosia proxima is also important from a faunistic point of view. Séguy (1961) indicated that this species was present in Catalonia, but without further precision. Apart from this, the only published records of C. proxima known to us are from the León and Guipúzcoa provinces (Marcos-García, 1989, 1990a, b; Kehlmaier, 2002). Records of other Cheilosia species such as C. vulpina, which were previously reported only from 4-5 provinces of Spain (Ricarte & Marcos-García, 2017), are also important to better understand the true distribution of these species in the Iberian Peninsula.

    Even though the 2020 sampling was short, faunistic results were remarkable in comparison with studies using longer periods of hand-net sampling in other parts of Spain. For example, in Cabañeros National Park, 82 species were collected by hand-netting during 468 hours of sampling in 13 months (Ricarte & Marcos-García, 2008). The reasons for such a similar result after such different sampling efforts might be due to the sampling designs, which resulted from different research aims, but could also be due to an effect of the diversity of the hoverfly community in each study area. Nonetheless, the results presented here suggest that short surveys conducted by experienced collectors during periods of high insect activity may suffice in the purpose of rapidly evaluating the biodiversity interest of a poorly studied area and/or for taking quick conservation decisions in threatened ecosystems or insect groups with well known requirements. Further fieldwork in other periods of the year are necessary to complete the inventory of species present in the biodiverse Camprodon valley.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    We are grateful to Mercè Navarro Heras and Gitti Bahl Zemsauer for guiding us into the Camprodon valley of Girona. We would also like to thank Ante Vujić for loaning specimens of Cheilosia that were useful for identification of the Pyrenean material. Thanks also to Iván Ballester for interesting discussions about the identity of some Cheilosia species. Segundo Ríos assisted in plant identification from photos taken on-site. English was kindly revised by Stephen Hewitt. Antonio Ricarte's position (Ref. UATALENTO17-08) at the University of Alicante is funded by the “Vicerrectorado de Investigación y Transferencia del Conocimiento”. This research was funded by the Fauna Iberica Project PGC2018-095851-A-C65 of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities.

    REFERENCES

    1.

    Álvarez-Fidalgo M., Álvarez-Fidalgo P., Ricarte A., Marcos-García M. A. 2018. The genus Leucozona Schiner, 1860 on the Iberian Peninsula, including the first records of Leucozona laternaria (Müller, 1776) (Diptera: Syrphidae). BV News Publicaciones Científicas 7(98): 128–141. Google Scholar

    2.

    Andréu J. 1926. Notas dipterológicas. Una lista de Sírfidos para contribuir al conocimiento de los dípteros de España. Boletín de la Sociedad entomológica de España 9(5): 98–126. Google Scholar

    3.

    Antiga P. 1888. Contribución a la Fauna de Cataluña. Catálogo de los Dípteros observados en diferentes sitios del Principado. Imprenta de Viuda e Hijos de J. Subirana , Barcelona , 16 pp. Google Scholar

    4.

    Barkalov A. 2009. A Key to Hover Flies of the Genus Cheilosia Mg. (Diptera, Syrphidae) of Kazakhstan. Entomological Review 89(9): 1157–1176. Google Scholar

    5.

    Barkalov A.V., Ståhls G. 1997. Revision of the Palaearctic bare-eyed and black-legged species of the genus Cheilosia Meigen (Diptera, Syrphidae). Acta Zoologica Fennica 208: 1–74. Google Scholar

    6.

    Bartsch H., Binkiewicz E., Rådén A., Nasibov E. 2009a. Blomflugor: Syrphinae. Nationalnyckeln till Sveriges flora och flora, DH53a. Artdatabanken , SLU, Uppsala , 406 pp. Google Scholar

    7.

    Bartsch H., Binkiewicz E., Klintbjer A., Rådén A., Nasibov E. 2009b. Blomflugor: Eristalinae & Microdontinae. Nationalnyckeln till Sveriges flora och flora, DH 53b. Artdatabanken , SLU, Uppsala , 478 pp. Google Scholar

    8.

    Becker T. 1894. Revision der Gattung Chilosia Meigen. Nova acta Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae Germanicae Naturae Curiosorum 62(3): 194–521. Google Scholar

    9.

    Claussen C., Ståhls G. 2007. A new species of Cheilosia Meigen from Thessaly/Greece, and its phylogenetic position (Diptera: Syrpidae). Volucella 8: 45–62. Google Scholar

    10.

    Cuní M. 1880. Excursión entomológica y botánica a San Miguel de Fay. Anales de la Sociedad Española Historia Natural 9: 204–242. Google Scholar

    11.

    Cuní M. 1881. Excursión entomológica y botánica á la Cerdaña Española (Cataluña). Anales de la Sociedad Española de Historia Natural 10: 367–389. Google Scholar

    12.

    Cuní M. 1885. Excursión entomológica a varias localidades de la provincia de Gerona. Acta de la Sociedad espanola de Historia Natural 14: 51–73. Google Scholar

    13.

    de Geer C. 1776. Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire des insectes. P. Hesselberg , Stockholm . Vol. 6, viii + 523 pp., 30 pls. Google Scholar

    14.

    Dirickx H.G. 1994. Atlas des Diptères syrphides de la région méditerranéenne. Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen , Brussel , 317 pp. Google Scholar

    15.

    Doyle T., Hawkes W.L.S., Massy R., Powney G.D., Menz M.H.M., Wotton K.R. 2020. Pollination by hoverflies in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 287: 20200508. Google Scholar

    16.

    Dufour L. 1848. Histoire des Métamorphoses du Cheilosia aerea. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie (3) 9: 205–209. Google Scholar

    17.

    Dušek J., Láska P. 1976. European species of Metasyrphus: key, descriptions and notes. Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca 73: 263–282. Google Scholar

    18.

    Egger J. 1858. Dipterologische Beiträge. Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Österreich 8: 701–716. Google Scholar

    19.

    Fabricius J.C. 1775. Systemaentomologiae, sistensinsectorumclasses, ordines, genera, species, adiectissynonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. Kortii, Flensbvrgiet Lipsiae [= Flensburg & Leipzig]. [32] + 832 pp. Google Scholar

    20.

    Fabricius J.C. 1781. Species insectorum. Vol. 2 , C. E. Bohnii, Hamburgi et Kilonii [= Hamburg and Kiel], 494 pp. Google Scholar

    21.

    Fabricius J.C. 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata etaucta. C. G. Proft, Hafniae [= Copenhagen], Vol. 4, [6] + 472+ [5] pp. Google Scholar

    22.

    Fallén C.F. 1810. Specim. entomolog. novam Diptera disponendi methodum exhibens. Berlingianis, Lund. 26 pp. Google Scholar

    23.

    Fallén C.F. 1816-1817. Syrphici Sveciae. Berlingianis, Lundae [= Lund ] , 1–14 [08.06.1816], 15-22 [08.06.1816], 23-30[10-05.1817], 31-42 [20.05.1817], 43-54 [21.05.1817], 55-62 [22.05.1817]pp. Google Scholar

    24.

    Galante E., Marcos-García M.A. 2004. Métodos de preparación y conservación (pp. 47–54). In : Barrientos J.A. (ed). Curso práctico de entomología. Manuals de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona , Barcelona , 947 pp. Google Scholar

    25.

    Giglio-Tos E. 1890. Le specie europee del genere Chrysotoxum Meig. Atti della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 26: 134–165. Google Scholar

    26.

    Gil-Collado J. 1930. Monografía de los Sírfidos de España. Trabajos del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (Serie Zoológica) , 54, 376 pp. Google Scholar

    27.

    Goeldlin de Tiefenau P. 1976. Révision du genre Paragus (Dipt., Syrphidae) de la région paléarctique occidentale. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique Suisse 49: 79–108. Google Scholar

    28.

    Goeldlin de Tiefenau P. 1989. Sur plusieurs espèces de Sphaerophoria (Dipt., Syrphidae) nouvelles ou méconnues des régions paléarctique et néarctique. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique Suisse 62: 41–66. Google Scholar

    29.

    Goeldlin de Tiefenau P. 1996. On several new European species of Syrphus (Diptera, Syrphidae) and key for the Palearctic species of the genus. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique Suisse 69: 157–171. Google Scholar

    30.

    Goeldlin de Tiefenau P., Maibach A., Speight M.C.D. 1990. Sur quelques espèces de Platycheirus (Diptera: Syrphidae) nouvelles ou méconnues. Dipterist's Digest 5: 19–43 Google Scholar

    31.

    Guixé D., Llobet T. 2016. Vida salvaje de los Pirineos. Gallocanta ediciones , 143 pp. Google Scholar

    32.

    Haarto A., Ståhls G. 2014. When mtDNA COI is misleading: congruent signal of ITS2 molecular marker and morphology for North European Melanostoma Schiner, 1860 (Diptera, Syrphidae). ZooKeys 431: 93–134. Google Scholar

    33.

    Harris M. 1776-1780. An exposition of English insects...Robson Co., London, 1776. Decad I, pp. 1–40, 2 pls + pls 1-10 [1776]; Decad II, pp. 41-72, pls 11-20[1778]; Decads III, IV, pp. 73-99, 100-138, pls 21-30, 31-40 [after 24.12.1779]; Decad V, pp. 139-166, pls 41-50+ 1 pl. [1780]. Google Scholar

    34.

    Hippa H., Nielsen T., van Steenis J. 2001. The West Palaearctic species of the genus Eristalis Latreille (Diptera, Syrphidae). Norwegian Journal of Entomology 48: 289–327. Google Scholar

    35.

    Kehlmaier C. 2002. Hoverflies (Diptera, Syrphidae) from northern Spain, with notes on Pelecocera tricincta Meigen, 1822. Volucella 6: 139–153. Google Scholar

    36.

    Latreille P.A. 1804. Tableau méthodique des insectes [pp. 129–200]. In : Latreille P.A. (ed.). Société de Naturalistes et d'Agriculteurs, Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle... Tome 24. [Section 3]: Tableaux méthodiques d'histoire naturelle . Deterville , Paris , 84 + 4 + 85 + 238 + 18 + 34pp. Google Scholar

    37.

    Leclercq M. 1963. Syrphidae de España (Diptera). Graellsia 20: 125–129. Google Scholar

    38.

    Leclercq M. 1971. Syrphidae (Diptera) des Pyrénées (Huesca, Lérida, Andorra, Gerona). Pirineos 102: 21–25. Google Scholar

    39.

    Linnaeus C. 1758. Systema naturae. Ed. 10, Vol. 1. 824 pp. L. Salvii, Holmiae [= Stockholm]. Google Scholar

    40.

    Loew H. 1840. Bemerkungen über die in der Posener Gegend einheimischen Arten mehrerer Zweiflugler = Gattungen. [Zu der] offentlichen Prufung der Schuler des Koniglichen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Gymnasiums zu Posen , 40 pp. Google Scholar

    41.

    Loew H. 1841. Ueber die Gattung Chrysotoxum. Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung 2: 136–141, 155-160. Google Scholar

    42.

    Loew H. 1857. Die europäischen Arten der Gattung Cheilosia. Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Österreich (Abhandl.) 7: 579–616. Google Scholar

    43.

    Lorenzo D., Ricarte A., Nedeljković Z., Nieves-Aldrey J.L., Marcos-García M.A. 2020. Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) of El Ventorrillo Biological Station, Madrid province, Spain: a perspective from a late twentieth century inventory. Revue suisse de Zoologie 127(2): 393–412. Google Scholar

    44.

    Lucas J.A.W. 1974. Syrphiden in de jaren 1969-1972. Entomologische Berichten 34: 48–51. Google Scholar

    45.

    Lucas J.A.W. 1976. New species of the genus Pipizella Rondani, 1856 (Diptera, Syrphidae). Pubicatiës van het natuurhistorisch gennootschap in Limburg, Maastricht 26: 5–13. Google Scholar

    46.

    Macquart P.J.M. 1829. Insectes diptères du nord de la France. Syrphies, Lille. «1827» 223 pp., 4 pls. Google Scholar

    47.

    Marcos-García M.A. 1985. Contribución al conocimiento de la sirfidofauna del Pirineo del Alto Aragón I (Diptera, Syrphidae). Boletim da Sociedade Portuguesa de Entomologia (Actas do II Congresso Iberico de Entomologia) 1: 511–520. Google Scholar

    48.

    Marcos-García M.A. 1989. Nuevas species de Cheilosia (Meigen, 1822) para la entomofauna ibérica (Diptera, Syrphidae). Fragmenta Entomologica 21(2): 145–151. Google Scholar

    49.

    Marcos-García M.A. 1990a. Catálogo preliminar de los Syrphidae (Diptera) de la Cordillera Cantábrica (España). Eos 66: 81–235. Google Scholar

    50.

    Marcos-García M.A. 1990b. El género Cheilosia Meigen, 1822, en la Cordillera Cantábrica (Diptera: Syrphidae). Mediterránea, Serie de Estudios Biológicos 12: 113–138. Google Scholar

    51.

    Marcos-García M.A., Láska P. 1983. Description of Metasyrphus lucasi sp.n. (Diptera, Syrphidae). Nouvelle Revue d'Entomologie 13(1): 113–116. Google Scholar

    52.

    Marcos-García M.A., Isidro P.M., Rojo S., Pérez-Bañón C. 1998. Catálogo y distribución geográfica de los sírfidos iberobaleares (Diptera, Syrphidae) I.- Syrphinae y Microdontinae. Boletín de la Asociación española de Entomología 22(3-4): 37–61. Google Scholar

    53.

    Marcos-García M.A., Rojo S., Pérez-Bañon C. 2002. Family Syrphidae (pp. 132–136). In : Monografías S.E.A. Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa (ed.). Catálogo de los Dípteros de España, Portugal y Andorra (Insecta). Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa (SEA) , Zaragoza , VIII+323 pp. Google Scholar

    54.

    Marcos-García M.A., Vujić A., Mengual X. 2007. Revision of Iberian species of the genus Merodon (Diptera: Syrphidae). European Journal of Entomology 104: 531–572. Google Scholar

    55.

    Marcos-García M.A., Vujić A., Ricarte A., Ståhls G. 2011. Towards an integrated taxonomy of the Merodon equestris complex (Diptera: Syrphidae) including description of a new species, with additional data on Iberian Merodon. Canadian Entomologist 143: 332–348. Google Scholar

    56.

    Marshall S.A. 2012. Flies: the natural history and diversity of Diptera. Firefly Books Ltd , USA and Canada , 616 pp. Google Scholar

    57.

    Meigen J.W. 1803. Versuch einer neuen Gattungs-Eintheilung der europäischen zweiflügeligen Insekten. Magazin für Insektenkunde 2: 259–281. Google Scholar

    58.

    Meigen J.W. 1822. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europaischen zweiflügeligen Insekten. Dritter Theil . Schulz-Wundermann , Hamm . x +416 pp., pls 22-32. Google Scholar

    59.

    Mengual X., Ståhls G., Rojo S. 2015. Phylogenetic relationships and taxonomic ranking of pipizine flower flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) with implications for the evolution of aphidophagy. Cladistics 31(2015): 491–508. Google Scholar

    60.

    Micó E. 2018. Saproxylic Insects in Tree Hollows (pp. 693–727). In : Ulyshen M. (eds), Saproxylic Insects. Zoological Monographs, vol 1. Springer , Cham . 904 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75937-1_21 Google Scholar

    61.

    Miličić M., Janković M., Tot T., Nedeljković Z., Popov S., Ivošević B., Radenković S., Vujić A. 2018. New findings of hoverfly fauna (Diptera: Syrphidae) of the western part of Serbia (Zlatibor and Raška districts). Acta entomologica serbica 23(2): 43–66. Google Scholar

    62.

    Monteil C. 2010. A Species Selection Tool for the “Syrph the Net” database. In : Speight M.C.D., Castella E., Sarthou J.-P., Monteil, C. (eds), Syrph the Net on CD, Issue 7. The database of European Syrphidae . Syrphthe Net Publications , Dublin . Google Scholar

    63.

    Müller O.F. 1764. Favna insectorvm Fridrichsdalina ... xxiv + 96 pp. Io. Frid . Gleditschii, Hafniae et Lipsiae [= Copenhagen and Leipzig ]. Google Scholar

    64.

    Nedeljković Z., Ačanski J., Vujić A., Obreht D., Đan M., Ståhls G., Radenković S. 2013. Taxonomy of Chrysotoxum festivum Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera: Syrphidae) – an integrative approach. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 169: 84–102. Google Scholar

    65.

    Nedeljković Z., Ricarte A., Šašić Zorić Lj., Đan M., Obreht Vidaković D., Vujić A. 2018. The genus Xanthogramma Schiner, 1861 (Diptera: Syrphidae) in southeastern Europe, with descriptions of two new species. Canadian Entomologist 150: 440–464. Google Scholar

    66.

    Nielsen T. 1970. Cheilosia sootryeni n.sp. (Diptera, Syrphidae), a Norwegian Species Resembling Ch. Vernalis Fallén. Norsk entomologisk Tidsskrift 17: 115–118. Google Scholar

    67.

    Osten-Sacken C.R. 1875. On the North American species of the genus Syrphus (in the narrowest sense). Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History (1875-1876) 18: 135–153. Google Scholar

    68.

    Panzer G.W.F. 1798. Favnae insectorvm germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten. Heft 60. H. Felsecker , Nürnberg 6, 24 pp. Google Scholar

    69.

    Peck L.V. 1988. Syrphidae (pp. 11–363). In : Soos A., Papp, L. (eds), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera. Akadémiai Kiadó , Budapest , 8: 363 pp. Google Scholar

    70.

    Poda von Neuhaus N. 1761. Insecta musei Graecensis, quae in ordines, genera et species juxta Systema Naturae Caroli Linnaei digessit. Widmanstadii, Graecii [=Graz] 127 + [xii] pp., 2 pls. Google Scholar

    71.

    Popov S., Miličić M., Diti I., Oskar M., Sommaggio D., Markov Z., Vujić A. 2017. Phytophagous hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) as indicators of changing landscapes. Community Ecology 18(3): 287–294. Google Scholar

    72.

    Pujade-Villar J. 2011. Aproximació a la història de l'estudi entomològic-faunístic als Països Catalans i algunes reflexions sobre el present i el futur de la ciència dels hexàpodes. Butlletí de la Institució Catalana d'Història Natural 76: 5–46. Google Scholar

    73.

    Rafinesque C.S. 1815. Analyse de la nature ou tableau de l'univers et des corps organisés. [Privately printed] , Palermo . 224 pp. Google Scholar

    74.

    Ricarte A., Marcos-García M.A. 2008. Los sírfidos (Diptera: Syrphidae) del Parque Nacional de Cabañeros (España): una herramienta para la gestión. Boletín de la Asociación Española de Entomología 32(1-2): 19–32. Google Scholar

    75.

    Ricarte A., Marcos-García M.A. 2017. A checklist of the Syrphidae (Diptera) of Spain, Andorra and Gibraltar. Zootaxa 4216(5): 401–440. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4216.5.1 Google Scholar

    76.

    Ricarte A., Nedeljković Z. 2020. Triglyphus primus Loew, 1840 (Diptera, Syrphidae), new to Spain. Boletín de la Asociación Española de Entomología 44(3-4): 567–570. Google Scholar

    77.

    Ricarte A., Nedeljković Z., Quinto J., Marcos-García M.A. 2010. The Genus Ferdinandea Rondani, 1844 (Diptera, Syrphidae) in the Iberian Peninsula: First Records and New Breeding Sites. Journal of the Entomological Research Society 12(3): 57–69. Google Scholar

    78.

    Rojo S., Gilbert F., Marcos-García M.A., Nieto J.M., Mier M.P. 2003. A world review of predatory hoverflies (Diptera, Syrphidae: Syrphinae) and their prey. Alicante : Centro Iberoamericano de la Biodiversidad , 319 pp. Google Scholar

    79.

    Rondani C. 1844. Species Italicae Generis Callicerae ex insectis Dipteris, distinctae et descriptae; Fragmentum octavum ad inserviendum Dipterologiae Italicae. Annales de la Société entomologique de France (2) 2: 61–68. Google Scholar

    80.

    Rondani C. 1845. Species Italicae generis Chrysotoxi insectis Dipteris, observatae et distinctae. Fragmentum decimumad inserviendum dipterologiae Italicae . Annales de la Société entomologique de France (2) 3: 193–203. Google Scholar

    81.

    Rondani C. 1857. Dipterologiae italicae prodromus. Vol: II. Species italicae ordinis dipterorum in genera characteribus defi nita, ordinatim collectae, methodo analitica distinctae, et novis vel minus cognitis descriptis. Pars prima. Oestridae: Syrpfhidae: Conopidae. A. Stocchi, Parmae [= Parma], 264 pp. Google Scholar

    82.

    Rondani C. 1865. Diptera Italica non vel minus cognita descripta vel annotata observationibus nonnullis additis. Fasc. I. Oestridae-Syrphidae-Conopidae; Fasc. II. Muscidae. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano 8: 127–146 [May 1865]; 193-231 [May 1865]. Google Scholar

    83.

    Rotheray G.E. 1993. Colour guide to hoverfly larvae (Diptera, Syrphidae) in Britain and Europe. Dipterists Digest 9: 1–156. Google Scholar

    84.

    Sacasas-i-Lluís J. 2009. El Ripollès. Territori i Paisatge. Publicacions de l'Abadia de Montserrat : Barcelona , 94 pp. Google Scholar

    85.

    Sack P. 1928-1932. Die Fliegen der Palaerktischen Region, 31. Syrphidae. Stuttgart (Schweizerbart) , 451 pp. Google Scholar

    86.

    Sánchez-Heredia E.M., Aniorte N., Ricarte A., Marcos-García M.A. 2017. Diversidad de sírfidos (Diptera: Syrphidae) de la Estación Biológica de Torretes (Alicante, España). Cuadernos de Biodiversidad 52: 38–45. Google Scholar

    87.

    Schummel T.E. 1843. Verzeichniss und Beschreibung der bis jetzt in Schlesien gefangenen Zweiflügler der Syrphen Familie. Übersicht der Arbeiten und Veränderungen der Schlesischen Gesellschaft für vaterländische Kultur im Jahre 1842: 163–170. Google Scholar

    88.

    Scopoli J.A. 1763. Entomologia carniolica ... I. T. Trattner, Vindobonae [=Vienna]. [36] + 420 +[1] pp. Google Scholar

    89.

    Séguy E. 1961. Diptères Syrphides de l'Europe occidentale. Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle. Nouvelle Série, A, Zoologie 23: 248 pp. Google Scholar

    90.

    Shatalkin A.I. 1975. Taxonomic analysis of the family Syrphidae (Diptera). II. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 54: 899–909. Google Scholar

    91.

    Sommaggio D. 2001. The species of the genus Chrysotoxum Meigen, 1822 (Diptera, Syrphidae) described by Giglio Tos. Bollettino Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali Torino 18(1): 115–126. Google Scholar

    92.

    Sommaggio D., Corazza C. 2006. Contributo alla conoscenza dei Sirfidi (Diptera Syrphidae) della città di Ferrara. Quaderni della Stazione di Ecologia, Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, cita di Ferrara 16: 5–20. Google Scholar

    93.

    Speight M.C.D. 2020. Species accounts of European Syrphidae, 2020. Syrph the Net, the database of European Syrphidae (Diptera). Syrph the Net publications, Dublin 104: 1–314. Google Scholar

    94.

    Speight M.C.D., Castella E. 2001. An approach to interpretation of lists of insects using digitised biological information about the species. Journal of Insect Conservation 5: 131–139. Google Scholar

    95.

    Speight M.C.D., Sarthou J.-P. 2017. StN keys for the identification of the European species of various genera of Syrphidae 2017/Clés StN pour la détermination des espèces européennes de plusieurs genres de Syrphidae 2017. Syrph the Net, the database of European Syrphidae (Diptera). Syrph the Net publications, Dublin Vol. 99, 139 pp. Google Scholar

    96.

    Speight M.C.D., Sommaggio D. 2010. On the presence in Switzerland of Microdon myrmicae Schönrogge et al., 2002, Xanthogramma dives (Rondani, 1857) and X. stackelbergi Violovitsh, 1975 (Diptera: Syrphidae). Entomo Helvetica 3: 139–145. Google Scholar

    97.

    Speight M.C.D., Castella E., Sarthou J.-P. 2020. StN 2020. In : Speight M.C.D., Castella E., Sarthou J.-P., Vanappelghem C. (eds), Syrph the Net on CD, Issue 12. Syrph the Net Publications , Dublin . Google Scholar

    98.

    Ståhls G., Vujić A., Milankov V. 2008. Cheilosia vernalis (Diptera, Syrphidae) complex: molecular and morphological variability. Annales Zoologici Fennici 45: 149–159. Google Scholar

    99.

    Thompson F.C., Torp E. 1986. Synopsis of the European species of Sphegina Meigen (Diptera: Syrphidae). Fauna Entomologica scandinavica 17: 235–268. Google Scholar

    100.

    van Doesburg P.H. 1951. Syrphidae de Banyuls et environs. 10me communication sur les diptères syrphides. Vie et milieu 2(4): 481–487. Google Scholar

    101.

    van Eck A. 2010. Poorly recorded Syrphidae (Diptera) from Spain including species new to its fauna. Boletín de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa , 46: 299–300. Google Scholar

    102.

    van Steenis 2000. The West-Palaearctic species of Spilomyia Meigen (Diptera: Syrphidae). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique Suisse 73: 143–168. Google Scholar

    103.

    van Steenis J., Lucas J.A.W. 2011. Revision of the West-Palaearctic species of Pipizella Rondani, 1856 (Diptera, Syrphidae). Dipterists Digest 18: 127–180. Google Scholar

    104.

    van Steenis J., Ricarte A., Vujić A., Birtele D., Speight M.C.D. 2016. Revision of the West-Palaearctic species of the tribe Cerioidini (Diptera, Syrphidae). Zootaxa 4196 (2): 151–209. Google Scholar

    105.

    van Steenis J., van Zuijen M.P., Ricarte A., Marcos-García M.A., Doczkal D., Ssymank A., Mengual X. 2020. First records of Chrysotoxum volaticum Séguy, 1961 from Europe and Platycheirus marokkanus Kassebeer, 1998 from Spain (Diptera: Syrphidae) together with additional records of Spanish Chrysotoxum Meigen, 1803. Bonn zoological Bulletin 69(1): 141–155. Google Scholar

    106.

    van Veen M. 2010. Hoverflies of Northwest Europe: identification keys to the Syrphidae. KNNV Publishing , Utrecht, Netherlands , 247 pp. Google Scholar

    107.

    Vázquez V.M., Fernández-Prieto J.A. 2002. El bosque Atlántico (pp. 48–69). In : Reyero J.M. (ed), La Naturaleza de España. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente , Madrid , 381 pp. Google Scholar

    108.

    Verlinden L. 1999. Cheilosia hypena Becker, 1894 (Diptera, Syrphidae) - description of the male, re-description of the female and its separation from Cheilosia frontalis Loew, 1857. Volucella 4(1/2): 85–92. Google Scholar

    109.

    Verrall G.H. 1873. Additions and correction to the list of British Syrphidae. Entomologist's Monthly Magazine 9: 251–256. Google Scholar

    110.

    Violovitsh N.A. 1974. A review of the Palaearctic species of the genus Chrysotoxum Mg. (Diptera, Syrphidae). Entomologocskoc obozrenie (Entomological Review) 53: 196–217. Google Scholar

    111.

    Vujić A. 1992. Taksonomski položaj i zoogeografska analiza roda Cheilosia Meigen, 1822 i srodnih rodova (Diptera: Syrphidae) na Balkanskom poluostrvu. PhD thesis, University of Novi Sad , Serbia , 260 pp. Google Scholar

    112.

    Vujić A. 1996. Genus Cheilosia Meigen and related genera (Diptera: Syrphidae) on the Balkan Peninsula. Monographs of Matica Srpska , Novi Sad , 194 pp. Google Scholar

    113.

    Vujić A. 1999. The tribe Chrysogasterini (Diptera: Syrphidae) in the Balkan Peninsula, with the description of three new cryptic species. Studia dipterologica 6(2): 405–423. Google Scholar

    114.

    Vujić A., Nedeljković A., Hayat R., Demirözer O., Mengual X., Kazerani F. 2017. New data on the genus Chrysotoxum Meigen (Diptera: Syrphidae) from North-East Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran including descriptions of three new species. Zoology in the Middle East 63(3): 250–268. Google Scholar

    115.

    Vujić A., Radenković S., Trifunov S., Nikolić T. 2013. Key for European species of the Cheilosia proxima group (Diptera, Syrphidae) with a description of a new species. ZooKeys 269: 33–50. Google Scholar

    116.

    Vujić A., Ståhls G., Ačanski J, Bartsch H., Bygebjerg R., Stefanović A. 2013. Systematics of Pipizini and taxonomy of European Pipiza Fallén: molecular and morphological evidence (Diptera, Syrphidae). Zoologica Scripta 42(3): 288–305. Google Scholar

    117.

    Vujić A., Šimić S. 1995-1998. Genus Eumerus Meigen 1822 (Diptera: Syrphidae) in area of former Jugoslavia. Glasnik Prirodnjackog Muzeja u Beogradu B 49-50: 173–190. Google Scholar

    118.

    Wiedemann C.R.W. 1818. Neue Insecten vom Vorgebirge der guten Hoffnung. Zoologisches Magazin 1(2): 40–48. Google Scholar

    119.

    Zetterstedt J.W. 1838. Dipterologis Scandinaviae. Sect. 3: Diptera, pp. 477–868. Insecta Lapponica, Lipsiae [= Leipzig ], vi +1, 140 pp. Google Scholar

    120.

    Zetterstedt J.W. 1842-1860. Diptera Scandinaviae, Officina Lundbergiana, Lundae [= Lund.], Vol. 1, [before 06.09.1842]; vol. 2, pp. 441–894 [02.05.1843]; vol. 3, pp. 895-1012 [20.03.1844], 1013-1280 [09.04.1845]; vol. 4, pp. 1281-1738 [11.06.1845]; vol. 5, pp. 1739-2162[03.09.1846]; vol. 6, pp. 2163-2580 [09.06.1847]; vol. 7, pp. 2581-2934 [13.09.1848]; vol. 8, pp. 2935-3366 [12.09.1849]; vol. 9, pp. 3367-3710 [1850]; vol. 10, pp. 3711-4090 [1851]; vol. 11, pp. 4091-4545[10.03.1852]; vol. 12, pp. xx + 4547-4942 [July 1855]; vol. 13, pp. xvi+ 4943-6190 [01.091859 preface]; vol. 14, pp. iv + 6191-6609 [12.12.1860], pp. iii-xvi+440. Google Scholar

    Appendices

    APPENDIX

    First faunistic data on the hoverflies from the eastern Pyrenees of Girona province (Spain) collected in July/August 2020. (*) indicates the first documented record of a species for a geographical unit, i.e. the species was known from a geographical unit but without further locality details and this is the first time that locality details are provided. Triglyphus primus is omitted from this list because its records were advanced in a different publication.

    img-z17-3_381.gif

    Continued

    img-z18-1_381.gif
    Antonio Ricarte, Zorica Nedeljković, and Ma Ángeles Marcos-García "An exploratory survey and assessment of the hoverfly diversity (Diptera: Syrphidae) from the Pyrenees of Girona, Spain," Revue suisse de Zoologie 128(2), 381-398, (21 October 2021). https://doi.org/10.35929/RSZ.0052
    Accepted: 9 June 2021; Published: 21 October 2021
    JOURNAL ARTICLE
    18 PAGES


    Share
    SHARE
    KEYWORDS
    Camprodon valley
    Catalonia
    checklist
    Cheilosia hypena
    Chrysotoxum lessonae
    distribution
    Flowerflies
    RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
    Get copyright permission
    Back to Top