Front page Chironomus 24 - Insect Division

CHIRONOMUS 

Newsletter on Chironomidae Research 

No. 24 ISSN 0172-1941 (printed) 1891-5426 (online) November 2011 

CONTENTS 

Editorial: 

Science communication 3 

18th International Symposium on 

Chironomidae, Trondheim Norway 

4-6 July 2011 4 

Deadheads at high altitude: 

Summary from the 10th Workshop 

on Subfossil Chironomidae, 

Finse, Norway, 2011 8 

Current Research 11 

Martin, J. Chironomus samoensis 

is a complex of species 11 

da Silva, F. L. Chironomidae types 

at the Museum of Comparative 

Zoology, Boston 18 

Short Communications 23 

Pseudodiamesa nivosa or 

Pseudodiamesa arctica? 23 

Typical types - a swan song? 30 

Chironomus Newsletter now 

compliant with the ICZN 35 

Cricotopus brevipalpis mining Potamogeton natans leaves. Photo by Susan Gresens and Torbjørn Ekrem

CHIRONOMUS Newsletter on Chironomidae Research 

Editors 

Torbjørn EkrEm, Museum of Natural History and Archaeology, Norwegian University of Science and 

Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway 

Peter H. Langton, 16, Irish Society Court, Coleraine, Co. Londonderry, Northern Ireland BT52 1GX 

The CHIRONOMUS Newsletter on Chironomidae Research is devoted to all aspects of chironomid research 

and aims to be an updated news bulletin for the Chironomidae research community. The newsletter is 

published yearly in October/November, is open access, and can be downloaded free from this website: 

http://www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/chironomus. 

Research articles for the CHIRONOMUS Newsletter are subject to peer-review. 

Contributions to CHIRONOMUS Newsletter on Chironomidae Research should be submitted online through 

the online journal system: http://www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/chironomus following the author guidelines. 

Submission deadline for contributions to the newsletter is July 1. 

Would you like to see your picture on the front page? Please send us your favourite midge photograph or 

drawing (torbjorn.ekrem@ntnu.no). 

Printed copies of the CHIRONOMUS Newsletter are available at the following libraries: 

Bavarian State Library, Munich, Germany 

Biology Library, Univeristy of Lund, Sweden 

Natural History Library, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, USA 

Library and Archives, Natural History Museum, London, UK 

Science and Health Library, University of Tromsø, Norway 

Science Library, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Norway 

The Royal Library, Copenhagen, Denmark 

Front page layout: Chironomid in title from photograph by Steve Marshall, Graphic design by Kolbjørn Skarpnes, 

NTNU Information Division. 

Front page photo: Cricotopus brevipalpis larvae mining Potamogeton natans leaves. 

Photo by Susan Gresens and Torbjørn Ekrem. 

2

Editorial 

Science communication 

Communication of research results may take many different forms. Some are modern in expression 

and content, while others definitely are more traditional. Traditional ways of communicating 

science does not mean that they are unsuitable in a modern research society, however. Printed 

articles in journals and newspapers and conferences and symposia are flourishing as never before 

and although many of these also have online versions, there is little doubt that many of us prefer 

to read text on paper instead of screen - not the least when sitting at the microscope with descriptions 

and identification keys. Moreover, certain research results must be either printed on paper 

or deposited in at least five publicly accessible libraries to be valid in the scientific community. 

This is the case for nomenclatorial changes in zoology as governed by the current International 

Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This issue of the CHIRONOMUS Newsletter on Chironomidae 

Research will be the first in a number of years that is actually printed in a limited 

number of copies and sent to selected public science libraries in Europe and North America (see 

previous page). We will also send a copy to Zoological Record. This will allow us to publish 

descriptions of new species as well as nomenclatorial changes and we hope that you will consider 

Current Research in CHIRONOMUS Newsletter as a future venue for publication of your 

taxonomic research. 

This issue of the newsletter contains multiple additional examples of how science communication 

is performed in our community. We have reports from two recent meetings, current research 

articles and ongoing taxonomic discussions in our Short Communications section. The Current 

Bibliography that has been maintained by Odwin Hoffrichter for so many years, and is a valuable 

source of information on chironomid literature, unfortunately is not contained in this issue. We 

are currently discussing ways of maintaining this resource for the future, preferably in an online 

database, but a final solution is not yet ready. 

In the meantime, revival of the tradition of circulating reprints, perhaps by email attachment to 

reduce the cost, would ensure that references to papers published, particularly in journals 

‘obscure’ outside the country of publication, would not be omitted and citations missed. 

We hope that you enjoy this issue of the CHIRONOMUS Newsletter and look forward to see your 

contributions for the 2012 issue. 

Peter H. Langton 1 & Torbjørn Ekrem 2 

1 16, Irish Society Court, Coleraine, Co. Londonderry, Northern Ireland BT52 1GX. 

E-mail: PHLangton@kylebegave.fsnet.co.uk 

2 Museum of Natural History and Archaeology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 

Trondheim, Norway. E-mail: torbjorn.ekrem@ntnu.no 

3

18 th InternatIonal SympoSIum on ChIronomIdae 

trondheIm norway 4-6 July 2011 

On the 4 th of July 2011 about 80 chironomists from 

as far afield as Japan, New Zealand, Argentina and 

Canada converged on the Norwegian University of 

Science and Technology (NTNU), a short walk uphill 

from Trondheim city centre. After registering, 

the delegates were warmly welcomed by Kaare 

Aagaard, Elisabeth Stur and Torbjørn Ekrem, before 

the Symposium was officially opened by the 

NTNU Museum Director Prof. Axel Christophersen. 

The honorary Thienenamnn lecture was 

delivered by Oliver Heiri entitled ‘Traces of past 

environments in the chemical composition of chironomid 

remains: stable isotopes in chironomid 

palaeoecology’. For the oldest of us, what has become 

possible in chironomid research – the analysis 

of stable isotopes in the fragments of long dead 

chironomid larval head capsules in order to reconstruct 

past climate changes, nitrogen pollution 

and the carbon food sources of lake foodwebs – is 

truly mind-boggling. One can only hope that there 

will be place still for the amateur chironomist with 

minimal equipment and finance. However, this is 

what these symposia are all about: widening the 

appreciation and knowledge of what can be done 

and is being done in the subject to which we are 

dedicated. This was an excellent start to a highly 

informative and exciting program. 

Logo from the symposium. Design: Elin Sandbakk 

After a very agreeable lunch in the university canteen 

(repeated on the following two days), the general 

program took off with two sessions of papers 

on palaeolimnology: six papers on what is being 

done on little bits of subfossil chironomid larval 

head capsules. For those of us who find difficulty 

in identifying a complete extant larva the palaeolimnological 

identifications appear little more than 

4 

wishful thinking, but as they so well demonstrated 

you do not have to have specific identification to 

derive useful information from the exercise. Once 

again the use of a carbon isotope to determine the 

food source and therefrom the eutrophication states 

of a lake, demonstrated just how sensitive the 

technique can be: it so happens that during periods 

of eutrophication more of the carbon food source 

is derived from methanogenic bacteria and this 

can be detected in the δ13C values derived from the 

subfossil chrironomid larval head capsules. 

There followed extreme activity in the lobby area 

outside the lecture theatre as posters were rapidly 

displayed on the substantial notice boards and the 

first period of viewing commenced. There was a 

wide variety of presentations including ecology, 

biodiversity, systematics traditional (even of some 

strange Mesozoic fossils with long biting proboscis) 

and more advanced (CAD and CO1 sequencing), 

six new species, species reappraised and 

species reinstated, and more palaeolimnogy. 

That evening an organ recital had been arranged 

at the Nidaros Cathedral, which has two organs: 

half the program was played on the older Baroque 

organ (Bach, including the famous Toccata 

and Fugue) and the second half on the main more 

recent Steinmeyer organ over the entrance to the 

cathedral (Egil Hovland – a composer new to most 

of the delegates). The organist was Øyvind Kåre 

Pettersen whose virtuosic performance, ending 

in a piece of Hovland fireworks, was pure artistic 

enjoyment for those of the delegates whose musical 

appreciation extends to that of works for large, 

loud organs. Rounding the evening off was a wine 

and canapés reception in the neighbouring restaurant: 

excellent provision for chatting the evening 

away with those of like mind. 

Tuesday morning was devoted to taxonomy and 

systematics. Before the coffee break five papers 

based on morphology and after, four based on 

molecular techniques and one on morphology 

were presented, demonstrating the wide variety of 

techniques being used at this time to distinguish 

species. The use of the polymerase chain reaction 

for separating Chironomus species at any stage of 

development is a novel addition to the techniques 

already in use for the genus. 

There followed a period of seventeen presentations 

on ecology and biomonitoring that lasted until 

lunch of the following day (Wednesday), that

Group photo of symposium participants outside University main building. Photo: Arnstein Staverløkk. 

took the delegates across the world from arctic Canada 

through Iceland, Europe, India, and Korea to 

New Zealand, from alpine pools to lowland lakes 

and from freezing temperatures to geothermal waters. 

The talks gave a fascinating overview of the 

variety of studies that chironomids can stimulate. 

These presentations were punctuated by the Tuesday 

evening Conference Dinner, held at Ringve 

Botanical Garden. The delegates were first shown 

round the garden by Vibekke Vange. The garden 

includes a large pond, where some delegates took 

the opportunity to do some collecting. The meal 

was a feast for the eye as well as for the palate, the 

evening further lifted by the camaraderie natural in 

the chironomist community. 

The last session of the oral proceedings began after 

lunch on Wednesday on toxicology, cytology and 

genetics. The seven presentations covered genetic 

control of behaviour, stress response to endocrine-disrupting 

compounds, desiccation tolerance 

mechanisms, gamma radiation tolerance in Chironomus 

ramosus, DNA, chromosome responses to 

toxic contaminants and centromere structure. The 

Chironomidae are being comprehensively scrutinized 

and exhibiting just how plastic is their general 

physiology and cytology. 

The final session entitled “Chironomidae Symposium 

Forum”, began with in memoriam accounts 

5 

of chironomists recently deceased: Paul Freeman 

and Arthur Harrison by Peter Cranston, and Alevtina 

Shilova and Alexander Konstantinov by Andrey 

Przhiboro; a minute’s silence was observed 

in their memory. The award for student presentation 

was awarded to Alyssa Anderson and for the 

student poster was presented to Isabelle Proulx. 

Two presentations were then given for the venue 

of the next symposium: Naime Arslan’s invitation 

to Turkey was followed by Jolana Tátosová’s to 

the Czech Republic; I could have happily gone to 

either location, but the vote went to the Czech Republic. 

The Symposium was brought to a very enjoyable 

conclusion with a social held in the garden of 

Kaare Aagaard’s home. Our grateful thanks go to 

Kaare and his family for the warm welcome they 

gave and the excellent refreshments. 

The day following many of the delegates participated 

in the post symposium tour to the UNESCO 

cultural heritage site Røros, where we were given 

a guided tour of this post-mining community: 

exceedingly spartan living seems to have been a 

way of life for the miners – the tiny wooden cottages 

have left a lasting memory. Thence we travelled 

to the Sølendet Nature Reserve, where the 

wildflowers punctuated the fen with colour and the 

spring stream and fen pools provided the dedicated 

collectors an opportunity to get their nets in

action again. Wet but happy we boarded the coach 

again to pass over the scenically spectacular 

mountains to Tydal Valley and Sylane Mountains, 

where we were feasted at a remarkable restaurant 

in “the middle of nowhere”. We had a short time 

to photograph the wild flowers and do some more 

collecting before we were off again, now on our 

way back to Trondheim, but there was one more 

stop along the River Nea, a river regulated for hydroelectric 

power. We were given a guided tour 

of the large hydroelectric plant in the bowels of 

the mountain, which seems to be under the control 

of just two engineers. Culture, nature, spectacular 

scenery and pleasant company provided an experience 

that participants were very happy not to have 

missed. 

On behalf of all the delegates I offer our grateful 

thanks to Elisabeth Stur, Torbjørn Ekrem, Kaare 

Aagaard and their helpers for a most educational, 

well organised and memorable symposium and to 

the NTNU for providing the venue. 

Peter Langton 

Londonderry 

Memories of the 18th International Symposium 

on Chironomidae 

What a great symposium! I would qualify my first 

international symposium on Chironomidae as being 

refreshing, resourceful and helpful. Being 

used to attending much bigger gatherings, I really 

appreciated the more one-on-one, friendly and personal 

feeling of this symposium. Having the time 

to talk to people who work with chironomids and 

authors whom I had known only through their 

publications was really rewarding. In my doctoral 

research, Chironomus species identification has 

been my biggest challenge, and so I came to this 

meeting with the specific objective of getting some 

feedback on the work I have been doing. Not only 

was I able to get some answers to my questions, 

but I also made new and very helpful contacts. I 

would really like to thank the organisers for this 

wonderful, well-organised and pleasant symposium. 

I only have good memories of my experience 

in Trondheim! 

Isabelle Proulx 

INRS Eau Terre Envitonnement 

Université du Québec, 

Québec (QC), Canada 

6 

Len Ferrington, Pete Cranston and Anker Halvorsen discussing 

midges during a coffee break. Photo: Elisabeth 

Stur. 

First time impressions of the International 

Symposium on Chironomidae 

The list of speakers and attendees of the 18th International 

Symposium on Chironomidae reads very 

much like the bibliography of any rigorous literature 

review of the subject. Any misgivings one 

might have about attending such a specialized and 

esteemed event are quickly forgotten after meeting 

the participants. This community of researchers is 

very welcoming and it was encouraging to listen 

to veteran attendees who told of similar apprehensions 

when they arrived for their first symposium. 

The expertise each of the speakers was unequivocal 

and the breadth of knowledge was clear in the 

insightful questions and discussions. However, the 

most prominent feature of this group is the passion 

that people share for their subject. Not only 

do the participants exude zeal for their research, 

but many have stories of personal collections, research 

performed without funding and for personal 

interest, and some of us cannot walk by a pond or 

stream without looking for the presence of larvae 

or exuviae. The personal investment in this work 

seems so great that many of the people in attendance 

do not even seem aware of the legacy of 

their research. Outside the seminars people stand 

around microscopes, trade slides and specimens, 

and discuss taxonomic features as if recollecting 

the appearance of old friends. Others debate the 

best habitats to find certain species and swap stories 

of collecting trips. There is no substitution 

for being present at this conference. There are no 

identification keys precise enough or species list 

long enough to replace the value of these shared 

discussions. One cannot help but be impressed at 

the diversity of session topics and the addition of 

the Chironomid Subfossil Workshop held in Finse, 

Norway, prior to the conference only serves to in-

crease the number of participants and demonstrate 

the versatility of midges in answering ecological, 

biogeographical, physiological and genetic questions. 

While the monetary costs of attending an 

international conference can be high, the value 

here is far greater. The hosts of this event deserve 

special recognition and gratitude. Elisabeth Stur, 

Torbjørn Ekrem and the Museum of Natural History 

and Archaeology organised a memorable programme 

of talks, outings and social events. 

Christopher Luszczek 

York University 

Toronto, Canada. 

The 18th International Symposium on Chironomidae 

Participation in the Chironomidae Symposium 

in Trondheim was an important step for my PhD 

thesis and future work with chironomids. It was 

a wonderful opportunity to meet the best experts 

from all the fields, in which this amazing animal 

group can be used. It was really surprising for me 

how friendly and helpful were the people that I 

met, especially the “good old” experts. To have 

these contacts and to know that there is always 

someone you can ask for help, is the most important 

thing for a young scientist. Finally, this Symposium 

was the easiest way to get to Chironomidae 

heaven! 

Jarmila Lešková 

Commenius University 

Bratislava, Slovakia. 

7 

The 18th International Symposium on Chironomidae 

Attending the 18th International Symposium on 

Chironomidae in Trondheim, Norway, has given 

me the chance to present my own work and listen 

to talks on a wide variety of Chironomidae research. 

Researchers from all over the world attended 

the conference, presenting their work on different 

subjects, ranging from taxonomy to ecology. The 

conference was very well organized along with social 

events, which included an organ recital at the 

Nidaros Cathedral, a visit to the botanic gardens 

and a day trip to Røros and neighbourhood. I feel 

this conference is an important venue for scientists 

to meet, present their work, get to know each other 

and create collaborations. 

Elisabet Ragna Hannesdóttir 

University of Iceland 

Reykjavik, Iceland.

deadheadS at hIgh altItude: Summary from the 10 th workShop on 

SubfoSSIl ChIronomIdae, fInSe, norway, 2011. 

The 10th workshop on Subfossil Chironomidae 

was held at Bergen Museum/Finse Alpine 

Research Center, University of Bergen on June 

30. – July 2. 2011, and organised by Dr. Gaute 

Velle. There were 23 palaeo-chironomid researchers 

present, representing 10 different nationalities 

(see group photo). The purpose with these 

workshops is to exchange ideas and to have critical 

and fruitful discussions about topics ranging 

from larval identification to ecological interpretation 

– whether people are working with subfossil 

or contemporary data. Problems and progresses in 

chironomid palaeoecology are discussed among 

people with their fingers deep in the mud, and the 

informal presentations give a fine overview of current 

state-of-the-art research and development. 

The pre-workshop day on June 30th Participants at the workshop. Photo: Klaus P. Brodersen. 

in Bergen, was 

initiated with a welcome by Dr. Kari Hjelle, Head 

of Department at Bergen Museum. Dr. Richard 

Telford from the Department of Biology gave a 

presentation on “Numerical pitfalls in chironomid 

palaeoecology”. The talk was an introduction to 

the practical on statistics later on during the workshop 

(see below). A tour around the laboratory 

facilities with demonstration of the museums new 

automated identification and enumeration equipment 

was lead by Arild Breistøl and Gaute Velle. 

8 

After lunch, the workshop group went on the scenic 

Bergen-Oslo railway line to the field station 

at Finse (1222 m a.s.l.). A social ice-breaker hike 

to Hardangerjökulen glacier was guided by Gaute 

Velle. The hike in the wet and midge rich snow 

melt-water landscape, together with discussions 

on the glacier advance and retreats, gave a fine inspiration 

to the following two days workshop. 

The workshop was organised into four sessions 

with oral presentations; isotopes, transfer functions, 

climate, and environmental change. There 

were two practical sessions on taxonomy and statistics, 

and one session of general discussion. 

A number of ongoing projects (4 presentations) 

involve stable isotope analyses of either subfossil 

headcapsules, modern headcapsules, living larvae 

or food items from different habitats. Many 

methods and ideas from macroinvertebrate stable 

isotope research over the last decades are now being 

evaluated and implemented on subfossil material. 

The ongoing work involves optimization of 

analytical procedures with very small sample size, 

pre-treatment procedures, signal similarities between 

headcapsules and larvae, influence of food 

sources, in-lake and among lake variability etc. 

Combining the ecological information from C-13,

N-15 and O-18 with the information from the longterm 

subfossil records may open new windows to 

interpretation of catchment-, lake- and ecosystem 

development. 

The sessions on transfer functions and climate 

mainly contributed with both new and well known 

thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative 

chironomid-based temperature models 

(e.g., previous workshops, Langdon et al. 2007, 

Brodersen et al. 2009, see also Velle et al. 2010). 

Interfering and confounding environmental variables 

both for the modern transfer functions assemblages 

and for the fossil assemblages still requires 

serious attention. 

The presentations on (human) environmental 

change brings the interpretation beyond discussion 

of climate and temperature. An interesting attempt 

to combine the changes in the chironomid (temperature) 

record with numerous findings of pre-historic 

human occupation and changing environment in 

SW Swedish Lapland, underlines the challenges in 

the eventual interpretations. Likewise, a study of a 

sediment filled lake basin (a lake that is no longer 

there; Danube lowlands, Slovakia) also requires 

interpretational aspects that challenge the analytical 

skills out of the quantitative modelling. Modern 

DNA sequencing methods has also reached 

palaeoecology. These methods have recently been 

used to confirm taxonomic identifications, such as 

a likely placement of the fossil Corynocera oliveri 

type into the parthenogenetic Tanytarsus heliomesonyctios 

Langton (Stur and Ekrem 2011), parse 

out relationships between cryptic species, and harmonize 

taxonomic nomenclature. However, the 

application of DNA sequencing has more diverse 

utilities than taxonomic clarification. Eventually, 

the analyses will be able to reconstruct population 

differences and link divergence events with 

geographic locations and perhaps clear our understanding 

of ambiguous indicator species, such as 

Corynocera ambigua. 

The discussions and challenges mentioned above 

perfectly set the scene for the practical session on 

statistics, tutored by Dr. Richard Telford. Using the 

statistical language R, Telford presented a method 

to test the statistical significance of a quantitative 

palaeo-environmental reconstruction inferred 

from biotic assemblages and transfer functions. 

A reconstruction is considered statistically significant 

if it explains more of the variance in the 

fossil data than most reconstructions derived from 

transfer functions trained on random environmental 

data (Telford & Birks, 2011). The workshop 

participants used the newly developed codes in R 

9 

(see Telford & Birks, 2011) and tested the significance 

of reconstructions resulting from data that 

was provided or from their own data (see workshop 

photo). Such significance testing fills a major 

gap in the range of numeric procedures available 

to palaeoecologists and it is recommended that 

these tests are used whenever a reconstruction is 

published. 

Practical on statistics tutored by Richard Telford. 

Photo: Klaus P. Brodersen 

Workshops are a fine stage for commencing on 

position papers. In the discussion session, some 

ideas for joint publications were presented and discussed. 

Many of us have data-sets that individually 

are small, but that together can constitute a wealth 

of information. Such data-sets include numerous 

data-points at a broad temporal and spatial resolution 

that can be used to test hypothesis on topics 

such as large-scale environmental influences, 

training set diversity, down-core diversity, reconstruction 

significance testing, or colonization. The 

repeated workshops on subfossil Chironomidae 

and the presence of identification guides, such 

as Brooks et al. 2007, help ensure that we have a 

common platform and that the taxonomy is comparable 

among data-sets. We anticipate this and 

future workshops will result in shared efforts and 

joint papers. 

It was generally agreed that having the workshop

at field stations or similar type of residence halls 

were a great success, giving rise to a good social, 

informal, fruitful and efficient workshop. Then, 

there is nowhere to escape from the discussion! 

We thank all for active participating and constructive 

discussions. The next workshop on subfossil 

Chironomidae will be in spring or early summer, 

2013, most likely in the UK. 

Klaus Peter Brodersen 1 , Ladislav Hamerlik 1 & 

Gaute Velle 2 

1Freshwater Biological Section, Biological Institute, 

University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 

E-mail: klaus.brodersen@gmail.com, ladislav.hamerlik@savba.sk. 

2Bergen Museum, University of Bergen, Norway. 

E-mail: nzlgv@uib.no. 

References 

Brodersen, K.P., Velle, G., Reuss, N.S. 2009. 

Trends and development in chironomid palaeoecology: 

Summary from the 9th Workshop on 

Subfossil Chironomidae. Chironomus 22: 5-7. 

10 

Brooks, S.J., Langdon, P.G., Heiri, O. 2007. The 

identification and use of Palaearctic Chironomidae 

larvae in palaeoecology. Quaternary 

Research Association Technical Guide 10, 276 

pp. 

Langdon, P., Holmes, N., Stefánsson, S.M., Hannesdóttir, 

E., Axford, Y. 2007. The 8th European 

Subfossil Chironomid Workshop, Reykjavik 

7–8th May 2007. Chironomus 20: 10–13. 

Stur, E., Ekrem, T. 2011. Exploring unknown life 

stages of Arctic Tanytarsini (Diptera: Chironomidae) 

with DNA barcoding. Zootaxa 2743: 

27-39. 

Telford, R.J., Birks, H.J.B. 2011. A novel method 

for assessing the statistical significance of 

quantitative reconstructions inferred from biotic 

assemblages. Quaternary Science Reviews 

30: 1272-1278. 

Velle, G., Brodersen, K.P., Birks, H.J.B., Willassen, 

E. 2010. Midges as quantitative temperature 

indicator species: lessons for palaeoecology. 

The Holocene 20: 989-1002.

Current researCh 

Chironomus samoensis is a complex of species 

Jon Martin 

Department of genetics, The University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia 

E-mail: j.martin@unimelb.edu.au 

Abstract 

Chironomus samoensis, as currently recognised, 

is not a single species but a complex of more or 

less closely related species. C. samoensis Edwards 

1928 is redescribed from additional material, and 

considered to occur only in the Pacific region. 

Reasons for excluding material from other areas 

are given. C. flaviplumus Tokunaga 1940 is confirmed 

as the correct name for the Japanese material, 

the Indian material described by Chattopadhyay 

et al. (1991) is given the new name C. indiaensis, 

and new names are required for material from Australia 

and additional species from India. 

Introduction 

Chironomus samoensis Edwards 1928 was 

originally described from Samoa, American 

Samoa (Pago Pago) and Tonga. Since then, the 

species has been reported from other parts of 

Oceania (Tokunaga 1964, Cranston and Martin 

1989), Australia (Martin 2011), Japan (Hashimoto 

1977; Sasa and Hasegawa 1983), Taiwan 

(Yamamoto 1996), China (Wang 2000) and India 

(Chattopadhyay et al. 1991). However, as I will 

endeavour to show, most of these reports are 

misidentifications, and C. samoensis is probably 

limited to Oceania. 

I have not had the opportunity to examine the 

Edwards types, and his description does not 

include many characters important for species 

identification and is without illustrations. However, 

he did provide sufficient details to exclude many 

specimens described as C. samoensis from 

belonging to that species. One important feature 

is the superior volsella (SV) of the male, which 

Edwards compares specifically to the SV figured 

for C. imberbis (Kieffer 1917), as well as to other 

species such as C. dorsalis, and C. hawaiiensis, 

which all have a superior volsella (SV) of the D 

type (Strenzke 1959). While Kieffer’s illustration 

of the nomen dubium C. imberbis is not all that 

clear, all the known Chironomus species around 

11 

the Sydney area, the type location of C. imberbis, 

have a SV of the D type. In contrast to the Edwards 

(1928) description, some other descriptions of 

C. samoensis refer to the male as having a bootor 

foot-shaped superior volsella (e.g. Fig. 12a in 

Tokunaga 1964 (but see below), Chattopadhyay 

et al. 1991), corresponding to Strenzke’s (1959) S 

type. 

I believe that specimens I collected as larvae 

from Mapusaga, Tutuila Island, American Samoa 

(-14.29, 170.70), (29 February 1971), as well as 

a specimen from Faratogo, Tutuila (coll: N.R. 

Spencer, 29 June1964) from the Bishop Museum 

collection, are most probably the species described 

by Edwards, and they will therefore be more fully 

described here. The Bishop Museum specimen is 

labelled as C, samoensis, perhaps by Tokunaga, 

but this point is not certain. This will include a 

description of the immature stages for the first 

time. In general, the morphological terminology 

follows Sæther (1980), Webb & Scholl (1985) 

and Vallenduuk & Moller Pillot (1997). Colour 

could not be determined from these slide-mounted 

specimens. 

Results and Discussion 

Male 

Head: AR - 2.94 (2.51 - 3.23, 4); frontal tubercles 

33 µm (29-38, 4) long and 15µm (14-17, 3) wide; 

palpal proportions (micron) - 46 : 46 : 193 : 234 : 

354; clypeal setae 17-23. 

Thoracic setae: Acrostichal - at least 14 or 15; 

dorsolateral - 17-21; prealar - 4-5; scutellar in two 

rough rows, ant. 5-12, post. 12-15. 

Wing length 2.58 mm (2.40-2.68, 4), width 0.63 

mm (0.60-0.66, 4), VR 1.03 (1.02-1.04, 4). 

Legs: pale, tarsi slightly darker. Relative length of 

leg segments in Table 1.

Table 1. Lengths and ratios of leg segments of Chironomus samoensis 

Leg Fe Ti Ta1 Ta2 Ta3 Ta4 Ta5 LR F/T BR 

PI 1107 1000 1507 810 750 670 330 1.50-1.52 1.08-1.12 1.54-1.75 

PII 1170 1040 675 365 245 160 115 0.62-0.67 1.07-1.17 

PIII 1290 1245 1185 513 385 233 153 0.78-0.82 1.03-1.05 

Abdomen: pale, with darkening as described by 

Edward. Hypopygium: (Fig. 1) similar to that of 

C. dorsalis, with the SV of the D type, similar to 

fig. e of Strenzke (1959). The inferior volsella 

(IV) has mainly simple, curved setae, but a small 

number appear to have a small simple fork near the 

tip. About 4-6 setae on the 9th tergite near the base 

of the anal point. 

Female: 

No adult females are available amongst the present 

material, but one pupa with a pharate female 

was present. An important character is the relative 

proportions of the fore leg, particularly the tarsi, 

as Tokunaga (1964) notes that the Ta4 of specimens 

he assigned to C. samoensis was unusually 

long. The approximate lengths of these segments 

were measured (in micron) as: Fe 900 ; Ti 750 ; 

Ta1 1020 ; Ta2 620 : Ta3 470 : Ta4 610 : Ta5 340; 

Ta4 about same length as Ta2, and about one third 

longer than Ta3. 

Pupa: (Fig. 2) 

Exuviae length 6.8 (6.5-7.0, 3) mm (male), inner 

margin of wing case about 1.34 (1.27-1.42, 3) mm 

(male). Pale, with darkened caudolateral spurs. 

Cephalic tubules 87 (76-115, 3) µm long and 66 

Figure 1. Male hypopygium of Chironomus samoensis (left), superior volsella (right). Note the partly beaked apex of 

SV in the lower figure. 

12 

(56-80, 3) µm across the base, subterminal bristle 

about 68-80 µm in length. Basal ring about 151 

(129-164, 3) long and 70 (54-85, 3) µm. About 

67-77 hooks in row on segment II. Slight development 

of Pedes spurii B on segment II, progressive 

development of Pedes spurii A from segments IV 

to VI. Caudolateral spur of segment VIII about 

180 (155-200, 3) µm long, with 1 to 3 spines. 78- 

88 taeniae on each side of the anal lobe of male.

Figure 2. Pupal exuviae of Chironomus samoensis. Cephalic 

tubercles (above) and variations of spines on caudolateral 

spurs of segment VIII (below). 

Larva: (Fig. 3) 

A medium sized plumosus-type; length about 

12.5-12.7 mm (female) and 10.8-11.8 mm (male); 

lateral tubules about 280-360 µm; ventral tubules 

relatively long (anterior 1.76-2.16 mm; posterior 

1.80-2.68 mm), posterior pair longer and coiled; 

anal tubules moderately long (about 1.6-2.6 times 

longer than wide), dorsal pair (240-410 µm) slightly 

longer than ventral pair (215-370 µm). Head 

capsule pale with darkening of the posterior half of 

the gula, frontal apotome sometimes pale but mostly 

with slight darkening, ventral head length 261- 

318 µm. Distance between antennal bases greater 

than the distance between the S4 setae. Mentum 

wider than usual, about 0.6 of ventral head length; 

centre trifid teeth with c2 teeth well developed (essentially 

type IV); 4th laterals reduced to about the 

level of 5th laterals (type II), 6th lateral variable, 

sometimes arising at same level as other laterals 

but generally appearing to be at a slightly lower 

level, apparently due to breakage resulting from 

wear. Ventromental plates separated by about 35- 

41% of the width of the mentum; each with about 

32-35 striae. Pecten epipharyngis with about 13 

(10-16, 8) sharp pointed teeth. Premandible with 

sharp teeth, outer tooth shorter than inner tooth, 

which is about twice as wide as the outer tooth. 

Mandible about 208-228 mm long, with 3rd inner 

tooth relatively pale and only partly separated 

(type II), about 13 (12-14, 8) striae on inner margin 

13 

Figure 3. Features of the larval head capsule of Chironomus 

samoensis. a. Labrum and pecten epipharyngis, 

b. Premandible, c. Antenna, d. Mentum, e. Ventromentum, 

f. Mandible. 

at base, pecten mandibularis sparse, with about 8 

(7-10, 5) setae. Antenna five segmented, with A1 

almost 4 times longer than wide, RO between 0.4 

and 0.5 up from the base of the segment; relative 

length of antennal segments (micron) 110 : 24 : 6 : 

11: 7 ; AR 2.03-2.30. 

Cytology 

The polytene chromosomes (Fig. 4) available 

from six salivary gland squashes, prepared by the 

technique of Martin et al. (2006), are not of high 

quality, but are sufficiently good to show significant 

differences to those of other species that have 

been called C. samoensis. The arm combination 

is similar, being pseudothummi-cytocomplex (AE, 

BF, CD, G). There are at least two nucleoli, one 

central in arm G, and one about region 20 of arm 

F, with a large puff that may be a nucleolus near 

the middle of arm C. There are two Balbiani rings 

near one end of arm G. The only banding pattern 

that could be completely identified was that of 

arm A, which is the basic pattern of C. holomelas 

(Wuelker 1980). 

Based on these descriptions, diagnostic features of 

the species are: Frontal tubercles relatively long; 

LR about 1.50 -1.52, fore Ta5 about one third of 

the length of the fore tibia, SV of the D-type, or 

“beaked”; in female fore Ta4 longer than Ta3 and 

about the same length as Ta2. In larva, antennal 

segment 3 relatively short, usually shorter than A5. 

In the polytene chromosomes, the nucleolus in arm 

G is median, and there is a further nucleolus about 

region 20 of arm F and usually a large puff in arm 

C.

Figure 4. Salivary gland chromosome complement of Chironomus samoensis. A-G - chromosome arm identifications, 

N - Nucleolus, BR - Balbiani ring. 

The first re-description of C. samoensis was by 

Tokunaga (1964). While the male colouration, 

AR and LR are quite similar to those described by 

Edwards, and Tokunaga describes the SV as similar 

to C. dorsalis, his figure has a triangular apex 

which can be misinterpreted as an S-type. However, 

Tokunaga’s illustration of the SV is presumably 

intended to depict the somewhat “beaked” SV seen 

in some specimens (for which there is no equivalent 

in Strenzke’s SV types). Tokunaga makes 

particular comment on the relative length of the 

tarsal segments of the fore leg of the female - “in 

female the fore tarsus with segment 4 far longer 

than 3 and slightly longer than 2”. He then gives 

the relative lengths of the segments as Fe 110 ; Ti 

86.5 Ta1 163.5, Ta2 84.5 ; Ta3 81.5 ; Ta4 88.5 ; 

Ta5 38.5. The relative lengths are about the same 

as those found for the Samoan specimen. The 

specimens described by Tokunaga from Micronesia 

are probably C. samoensis, although their LR 

is higher (1.75-1.84) and Tokunaga mentions the 

female abdomen as having faint oval spots on the 

terga, while Edwards states only that it is without 

distinct markings. In the event that re-examination 

of Tokunaga’s specimens (the specific location of 

which is not given) indicates that this is a different 

species, the name Chironomus eximius Johannson 

(1946) might be an available name. Otherwise, 

the Tokunaga description provides details of adult 

morphology not included in the present re-description. 

14 

On the other hand it can be shown that the species 

identified as C. samoensis from other geographic 

areas do not fit these descriptions of the species. 

Material from Japan has been described both as C. 

samoensis (Hashimoto 1977) and as C. flaviplumus 

Tokunaga 1940, and, while there is agreement that 

there is only one species, there is uncertainty as 

to which name should be used. Sasa (1978) used 

the name C. flaviplumus on the basis that the AR 

of Japanese specimens was higher (about 4.0) than 

that of C. samoensis, and the fore Ta5 was longer 

compared to the fore Ti (about 0.42). Although he 

gave the lengths of the leg segments of the female, 

he did not note that those of the fore tarsi did not 

agree with those of C. samoensis as specified by 

Tokunaga (1964). Ta4 is only the same length as 

Ta3 and shorter than Ta2. Despite this, Sasa and 

Hasegawa (1983) accepted the synonymy of the 

two species and it has been used in this way by 

many authors (Sasa and Kawai 1987; Elbetieha 

and Kalthoff 1988; Kuhn et al. 1987; Wuelker et 

al. 1989). Wuelker et al. recognized the synonymy 

as doubtful, but incorrectly stated the probable 

correct name was C. fulvipilus. These authors also 

gave the banding sequences of chromosome arms 

A, E. and F., and photographs of the other arms 

were kindly made available to the author. These 

show that at least arms A and G differ from those 

of C. samoensis. Arm A does not have the basic 

sequence of C. holomelas, but differs by complex 

inversions: flaA1, 1a-i, 2k-d, 9 - 4, 13 - 14, 3h-i, 12 

- 10, 2c - 1k, 3a-g, 15 – 19 (Wuelker et al. (1989).

The nucleolus in arm G is virtually terminal, not 

central. 

Given the differences noted above, it is clear that 

Sasa’s 1978 assessment was correct and the Japanese 

material should be called C. flaviplumus. 

Chironomus samoensis has also been reported 

from Taiwan (Yamamoto 1996) and China (Wang 

2000), but no details of the specimens were given. 

It is therefore unclear whether they are C. flaviplumus 

or another species. 

A species occurring in northern Australia was initially 

identified as C. samoensis (Martin 2011), but 

the morphology and cytology now indicate that 

this is incorrect. The Australian species is a close 

relative of C. flaviplumus, but is not identical. The 

AR of the adult males is lower (2.4-2.9), the LR 

is higher (1.82-1.96 cf. 1.63) and the fore Ta5 is 

slightly shorter (about 0.37 of Ti in males, 0.34 in 

females). The tarsal proportions of the female are 

similar to those of C. flaviplumus. Cytologically, 

the nucleolus in arm G is virtually terminal, but 

arm A carries the basal sequence as in C. samoensis, 

and arm F differs from that of C. flaviplumus 

by a simple inversion In14d-9. A new name will 

be required for this species. 

Finally, C. samoensis has also been reported from 

India, with a detailed description of West Bengal 

specimens by Chattopadhyay et al. (1991). I have 

been sent material identified as C. samoensis from 

Jammu and Kashmir, but these specimens do not 

agree with the description of Chattopadhyay et al., 

or that of C. flaviplumus. The Jammu and Kashmir 

material may be comprised of two different species, 

although one may be C. incertipenis Chaudhuri 

and Das, 1996. The essential difference from 

C. samoensis evident in the description of Chattopadhyay 

et al. (1991) is that the superior volsella is 

a definite boot-shape (S-type), rather than similar 

to that of C. dorsalis, and so differs from any of the 

species discussed above. The fore Ta5 is slightly 

shorter, at 0.28 of Ti, but the description makes 

no mention an unusually long Ta4 in the female. 

While colour can be variable, it may be noted that 

the Indian specimens are described as generally 

brown rather than the green or yellowish colour 

of C. samoensis or C. flaviplumus. There are also 

differences in the larva. The larval head capsule 

is described as pale, the premandible has the outer 

tooth longer, the AR is lower (only 1.86) and the 

A3 segment is relatively longer (longer than A4, 

not shorter). There is no cytological data definitely 

associated with this species. This species therefore 

requires a new name, and is renamed C. indiaensis. 

15 

The material from Jammu and Kashmir requires 

further study as it comprises mostly larvae, with 

only a few adults. The situation is compounded 

by the fact that there are a number of described 

Indian species which are close cytologically, and 

have adults similar to those of the C. samoensis 

group. These include C. incertipenis Chaudhuri 

and Das 1996, which differs mainly in the dark, 

pointed anal point of the adult male and the shorter 

blunt inner tooth of the larval premandible, and 

C. ramosus Chaudhuri, Das and Sublette 1992, 

where the most obvious differences are the higher 

number of teeth in the larval pecten epipharyngis 

and the essentially equal teeth of the premandible. 

DNA sequence of the mitochondrial COI gene is 

available for a number of the Jammu and Kashmir 

specimens, including three adult males, and these 

indicate relationship to C. flaviplumus, with only 

5-7% base differences. The adult males (Fig. 5), 

while close to the C. samoensis group, are not C. 

samoensis and probably not C. flaviplumus. These 

adults are missing many leg segments or the antennae, 

which makes comparison difficult. They all 

have a “beaked” superior volsella. The AR is lower 

(about 3); LR is about 1.6 on the only specimen 

with the fore tarsi, and fore Ta5 is about 0.4 of Ti. 

Figure 5. Male hypopygium of a Chironomus species 

from Farooq Nagar, Jamu and Kashmir, India (Coll: P. 

Khanna) related to C. samoensis. Inset: “beaked” superior 

volsella. 

The larvae from Jammu and Kashmir do not seem 

to belong to either C. samoensis or C. flaviplumus, 

or to C. indiaensis. The head capsules generally 

have a darkened gula and the FA is very dark, 

sometimes mainly at posterior. The antennae

seem variable, with only some having a very short 

segment A3, others being longer than A5; AR 

about 1.9-2.0; the premandible teeth are nearer 

to equal length, and the outer tooth is about three 

quarters as wide as the inner tooth. 

Cytologically, most of these specimens have the 

arm F sequence flaF1 of Wuelker et al. (1989), but 

some specimens have the basal arm A sequence 

homA1, as in C. samoensis, while others a sequence 

that differs from flaA1 by a simple inversion. The 

nucleolus in arm G is generally subterminal, but 

the presence of a nucleolus cannot be definitely 

established in some specimens. While related 

to C. incertipenis and C. ramosus, they do not 

appear to be either of those species. C. ramosus 

characteristically has a nucleolus in arm B, and 

not in arm G (Nath and Godbole 1997), while C. 

incertipenis is present in Jammu and Kashmir, but 

differs in the mtCOI sequence (unpublished data). 

The presence of C. flaviplumus in India cannot 

be definitely ruled out, but it is more likely that 

at least two new names will be required for the 

material from Jammu and Kashmir. 

Summary 

These observations indicate that C. samoensis 

has not been found in any area other than the on 

Islands of the Pacific Ocean. C. flaviplumus could 

be more broadly distributed than its current range 

in Japan and Korea, the species described as C. 

samoensis by Chattopadhyay et al. (1992) can be 

renamed as C. indiaensis, while two or three new 

names will be required for other specimens from 

India, and Australian material. 

Acknowledgements 

I am grateful to many people for assistance 

in obtaining the materials used in this study: 

including P.M. Beales at Mapusaga who reared 

some of my larval sample to adults, M. Yamamoto 

for specimens of C. flaviplumus, J.P. Gupta for 

Varanasi samples, P. Khanna for Jammu and 

Kashmir samples, B.B. Nath for chromosome 

photographs of C. ramosus. Financial support for 

travel to Tutuila was provided by the University of 

Melbourne. 

References 

Chattopadhyay, S. Mazumdar, A., and Chaudhuri, 

P.K. 1991. Life stages and biology of 

Chironomus samoensis Edwards (Diptera: 

Chironomidae). - Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of India 61: 291-301. 

16 

Chaudhuri, P.K., Das, S.K., and Sublette, J.E. 1992. 

Indian species of genus Chironomus MEIGEN 

(Diptera: Chironomidae). - Zoologische 

Jahrbuch fürSystematik 119: 1-51. 

Cranston, P.S. and Martin, J. 1989. Family 

Chironomidae. In Evenhuis, N.L. (Ed.) 

Catalog of the Diptera of the Australasian 

and Oceanian regions, Bishop Museum Press, 

Honolulu & E.J.Brill, Leiden, pp. 252-274. 

Edwards, F.W. 1928. Nematocera. - Insects of 

Samoa Part VI. Fasc. 2: 23-68. 

Elbetieha, A. and Kalthoff, K. 1988. Anterior 

determinants in embryos of Chironomus 

samoensis: characterization by rescue bioassay. 

- Development 104: 61-75. 

Hashimoto, H. 1977. The Chironomus of Japan. 

- Iden 31(4): 78-84. 

Johannsen, O.A. 1946. Some new species of 

nematocerous Diptera from Guam. - Bulletin 

Bernice P. Bishop Museum 189: 187-193. 

Kieffer, J.J. 1917. Chironomides d’Australia 

conservé au Musée national hongrois de 

Budapest. - Annales historico-naturales Musei 

nationalis hungarici 15: 175-228. 

Kuhn, K.L., Percy, J., Laurel, M. and Kalthoff, K. 

1987. Instability of the anteroposterior axis in 

spontaneous double abdomen (sda), a genetic 

variant of Chironomus samoensis (Diptera, 

Chironomidae). - Development 101: 591-603. 

Martin, J. 2011. Australian Chironomus species. 

Available from http//www.genetics.unimelb. 

edu.au/Martin/AustChironfile/AustChiron.htm 

(accessed 24 June 2011). 

Martin, J., Andreeva, E.N., Kiknadze, I.I., and 

Wuelker, W. F. 2006. Polytene chromosomes 

and phylogenetic relationships of Chironomus 

atrella (Diptera: Chironomidae) in North 

America. - Genome 49: 1384-1392. 

Nath, B.B. and Godbole, N.N. 1997. Chromosomal 

characterization of a tropical midge. - Cytobios 

91: 25-31. 

Sæther, O.A. 1980. Glosasary of chironomid 

morphology terminology (Diptera: 

Chironomidae). - Entomologica scandinavica 

Supplement 14: 1-51. 

Sasa, M. 1978. A comparative study of adults and 

immature stages of nine Japanese species of the 

genus Chironomus (Diptera, Chironomidae). 

- Research Report from The National Institute 

for Environmental Studies 3: 1-63.

Sasa, M. and Hasegawa, H. 1983. Chironomid 

midges of the tribe Chironomini collected from 

sewage ditches, eutrophicated ponds, and some 

clean streams in the Ryuku Islands, southern 

Japan. - Japanese Journal of Sanitary Zoology 

34: 305-341. 

Sasa, M. and Kawai, K. 1987. Studies on the 

chironomid midges of Lake Buwa (Diptera: 

Chironomidae). - Lake Buwa Studies 

Monographs 3: 1-120. 

Strenzke, K. 1959. Revision der Gattung 

Chironomus MEIG. I. Die Imagines von 15 

norddeutschen Arten und Unterarten. - Archiv 

für Hydrobiologie 56: 1-42. 

Tokunaga, M. 1940. Chironomidae from Japan 

XII. New or little-known Ceratopogonidae 

and Chironomidae. - Philippines Journal of 

Science 72: 255-311. 

Tokunaga, M. 1964. Chironomidae of Micronesia. 

- Insects of Micronesia 12: 485-628. 

Wang, X. 2000. A revised checklist of chironomids 

from China (Diptera). In Hoffrichter, O. (Ed.) 

Late 20th Century Research on Chironomidae: 

an Anthology from the 13th International 

17 

Symposium on Chironomidae, Shaker Verlag, 

Aachen, pp. 629-652. 

Vallenduuk, H.J. and Moller Pillot, H.K.M. (1997) 

Key to the larvae of Chironomus in Western 

Europe. - RIZA Rapport 97.053: 1-13 + appendices. 

Webb, C.J. and Scholl, A. 1985. Identification 

of larvae of European species of Chironomus 

Meigen (Diptera: Chironomidae) by morphological 

characters. - Systematic Entomology 

10: 353-372. 

Wuelker, W., Devai, Gy. and Devai, I. 1989. 

Computer assisted studies of chromosome 

evolution in the genus Chironomus (Dipt.) 

Comparative and integrated analysis of 

chromosome arms A, E, and F. - Acta Biologica 

Debrecina Supplementum Oecologica. 

Hungarica 2: 373-387. 

Yamamoto, M. 1996. New record of four 

Chironomus (Diptera, Chironomidae) from 

Taiwan. - Japanese Journal of Entomology 

64: 618.

Chironomidae Types aT The museum of ComparaTive Zoology, BosTon 

Fabio Laurindo da Silva 

Laboratory of Aquatic Entomology, Department of Hydrobiology, Federal University of São Carlos, P.O. 

Box 676, 13565-905, São Carlos, SP, Brazil. 

Section of Natural History, Museum of Natural History and Archaeology, Norwegian University of Science 

and Technology, NO-7491, Trondheim, Norway. 

Ernst Mayr Fellow, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA. 

E-mail: fabelha@hotmail.com 

Abstract 

The Chironomidae (Insecta: Diptera) type collection 

at the Museum of Comparative Zoology 

(MCZ) is reviewed. It comprises 23 primary types, 

as well as paratypes and paralectotypes for an additional 

29 species, mostly resulting from research 

by H. Loew and H. K. Townes, respectively. Notes 

updating the taxonomic status are provided for 

several species. 

Introduction 

The chironomid collection of the Museum of 

Comparative Zoology (MCZ) at Harvard University 

in Boston, Massachusetts (USA), includes 

about 1,200 specimens mostly stored dry on pins, 

with a small number mounted on slides. It is historically 

relevant but not well known. The main 

parts of this material have resulted from respective 

research endeavors by H. Loew (1807-1879) and 

H. K. Townes (1913-1990). Its geographic emphasis 

lies in the United States and Central America. 

The annotated checklist presented below (Table 1) 

was generated during a research visit to the Museum 

of Comparative Zoology in February 2011 

that was partly financed by an Ernst Mayr Travel 

Grant in Animal Systematics from MCZ/Harvard 

University. 

Results 

The collection includes 52 type specimens now 

classified as 10 holotypes, 5 lectotypes and 8 syntypes, 

as well as paratypes and paralectotypes of 

an additional 29 Chironomidae species (Table 1). 

The majority of the types belong to the subfamilies 

Chironominae and Tanypodinae. 

All names of species and references were checked 

with the corresponding literature. The notes on the 

species’ taxonomic status are based on Systema 

Dipterorum (Thompson & Pape 2010), as well as 

on published papers, catalogs (Oliver et al. 1990, 

Spies & Reiss 1996, Ashe & O’Connor 2009) and/ 

or information on the collection labels. Some of 

the primary types were found labeled merely with 

“type”. The present respective interpretations of 

such specimens as holotypes, syntypes, etc., are 

based on all available data, e.g. those in the respective 

corresponding publications. 

The information presented here will be included 

in the database of primary types of Chironomidae 

already accessible online as part of the MCZ Entomology 

database (http://insects.oeb.harvard.edu/ 

mcz). 

Table 1. Chironomidae species with types deposited in the collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 

at Harvard University, Boston. Abbreviations: H = holotype, L= lectotype, P = paratype, PL= paralectotype, 

S = syntype, M = male, F = female, AU = Australian, NE = Nearctic, NT = Neotropical 

Type 

number 

MCZT 

07433 

MCZT 

19425 

MCZT 

15655 

Original genus 

Original 

species 

Chironomus brachialis 

Chironomus bulbosa 

Chironomus imperator 

CHIRONOMINAE 

Author/ 

Reference 

Coquillett, 

1901: 607 

Gerry, 1933: 

97 

Walley, 1926: 

64 

18 

Type Sex Preparation Distribution Note 

S M, F Pinned NE 1 

S M, F Pinned NT 2 

P M, F Pinned NE 3

MCZT 

19424 

MCZT 

25385 

MCZT 

07434 

MCZT 

25404 

MCZT 

25393 

MCZT 

25381 

MCZT 

25389 

MCZT 

25398 

MCZT 

25401 

MCZT 

25387 

MCZT 

25394 

MCZT 

25399 

MCZT 

25386 

Chironomus jamaicensis 

Chironomus nigricans 

Chironomus taeniapennis 

Glyptotendipes testaceus 

Harnischia amachaerus 

Harnischia argentea 

Harnischia carinata 

Harnischia cuneata 

Harnischia potamogeti 

Omisus pica 

Polypedilum simulans 

Pseudochironomus banksi 

Pseudochironomus crassus 

MCZT Stenochironomus albipalpus 

MCZT Stenochironomus fuscipatellus 

MCZT Stenochironomus woodi 

MCZT 

27258 

MCZT 

25391 

MCZT 

25403 

MCZT 

25384 

MCZT 

25395 

MCZT 

25397 

MCZT 

25382 

Type 

number 

MCZT 

01260 

MCZT 

10388 

Tanytarsus subtendens 

Tribelos protextus 

Tendipes atroviridis 

Tendipes biseta 

Tendipes carus 

Tendipes ochreatus 

Tendipes tuberculatus 


Original 

species 

Chasmatonotus bimaculatus 

Chasmatonotus unimaculatus 

Gerry, 1933: 

96 

Johannsen, 

1905: 219 

Coquillett, 

1901: 607 

Townes, 1945: 

140 

Townes, 1945: 

168 

Townes, 1945: 

164 

Townes, 1945: 

158 

Townes, 1945: 

163 

Townes, 1945: 

159 

Townes, 1945: 

27 

Townes, 1945: 

43 

Townes, 1945: 

17 

Townes, 1945: 

15 

Borkent, 

1984: 66 

Borkent, 

1984: 64 

Borkent, 

1984: 91 

Townes, 1945: 

65 

Townes, 1945: 

69 

Townes, 1945: 

114 

Townes, 1945: 

127 

Townes, 1945: 

118 

Townes, 1945: 

115 

Townes, 1945: 

128 

ORTHOCLADIINAE 

Author/ 

Reference 

Osten-Sacken, 

1877: 191 

Loew, 1864: 

50 

19 

S M, F Pinned NT 4 

P M, F Pinned NE 5 

S F Pinned NE 6 

P M, F Pinned NE 

P M Pinned NE 7 





P M Pinned NE 

P M Pinned NE 

H, P M Pinned NE 

H M Pinned NE 

P M, F Slide NE 

P M Slide NE 

P M, F Slide NE 



P M. F Pinned NE 14 


P M Pinned NE/NT 16 


H, P M, F Pinned NE 18 


S M Pinned NE 

S M, F Pinned NE

Type 

number 


Original 

species 

MCZT Ablabesmyia parajanta 

MCZT Ablabesmyia tarella 

MCZT 

31778 

MCZT 

10367 

MCZT 

19423 

MCZT 

07431 

MCZT 

15660 

MCZT 

15657 

MCZT 

10368 

MCZT 

15658 

MCZT 

10369 

MCZT 

10376 

MCZT 

15661 

MCZT 

15662 

MCZT 

15656 

MCZT 

10370 

MCZT 

10371 

MCZT 

15659 

MCZT 

10372 

MCZT 

10373 

MCZT 

31777 

MCZT 

10374 

MCZT 

10375 

Type 

number 

MCZT 

27639 

Coelotanypus cletis 

TANYPODINAE 

Author/ 

Reference 

Roback, 1971: 

373 

Roback, 1971: 

368 

Roback, 1963: 

174 


P M Slide NE 

P M Pinned/Slide NE 19 

H M Slide NT 

Tanypus bellus Loew, 1866: 4 L, PL M, F Pinned/Slide NE 20 

Tanypus brooksi 

Tanypus concinnus 

Tanypus cornuticaudatus 

Tanypus currani 

Tanypus flavicinctus 

Tanypus garretti 

Gerry, 1933: 

95 

Coquillett, 

1895: 308 

Walley, 1925: 

277 

Walley, 1925: 

276 

Loew, 1861: 

309 

Walley, 1925: 

275 

S M Pinned NT 21 

S M, F Pinned NE/NT 22 

P M, F Pinned/Slide NE 23 

P F Pinned NE 24 

H M Slide NE 25 

P F Pinned/Slide NE 26 

Tanypus hirtipennis Loew, 1866: 5 H M Slide NE 27 

Tanypus humeralis Loew, 1866: 3 L, PL M, F Pinned/Slide NE/NT 28 

Tanypus mallochi 

Tanypus peleensis 

Tanypus pilicaudatus 

Walley, 1925: 

273 

Walley, 1926: 

64 

Walley, 1925: 

277 


P M, F Pinned/Slide NE/NT 30 

P M Pinned/Slide NE 31 

Tanypus pilosellus Loew, 1866: 5 L, PL F Pinned/Slide NE/NT 32 

Tanypus pinguis 

Tanypus prudens 

Loew, 1861: 

308 

Walley, 1925: 

275 

H F Pinned NE 33 

P M Slide NE 34 

Tanypus pusillus Loew, 1866: 5 H M, F Pinned NE 35 

Tanypus scapularis Loew, 1866: 2 L, PL M, F Pinned/Slide NE/NT 36 

Tanypus telus 

Roback, 1971: 

61 

H, P M. F Pinned/Slide NE 

Tanypus thoracicus Loew, 1866: 4 L, PL M, F Pinned/Slide NE 37 

Tanypus tricolor 


Original 

species 

Thalassomyia setosipennis 

Loew, 1861: 

309 

TELMATOGETONINAE 

Author/ 

Reference 

Wirth, 1947: 

121 

20 

H F Pinned NE/NT 38 


P M, F Pinned AU 39

Notes on Table 1 

Chironomus brachialis Coquillett, 1901 is now Demeijerea brachialis (Coquillett, 1901). 

Chironomus bulbosa Gerry, 1933, the spelling of which has been corrected to C. bulbosus, is a nomen dubium in Chironominae. 

Chironomus imperator Walley, 1926 is a junior synonym of Chironomus plumosus (Linnaeus, 1758). 

Chironomus jamaicensis Gerry, 1933 is a nomen dubium in Chironominae. 

Chironomus nigricans Johannsen, 1905 is now Endochironomus nigricans (Johannsen, 1905). 

Chironomus taeniapennis Coquillett, 1901 is a junior synonym of Stenochironomus hilaris (Walker, 1848). 

Harnischia amachaerus Townes, 1945 is now Cladopelma amachaerus (Townes, 1945). 

Harnischia argentea Townes, 1945 is now Cyphomella argentea (Townes, 1945). 

Harnischia carinata Townes, 1945 is now Parachironomus carinatus (Townes, 1945). 

Harnischia cuneata Townes, 1945 is now Demicryptochironomus cuneatus (Townes, 1945). 

Harnischia potamogeti Townes, 1945 is now Parachironomus potamogeti (Townes, 1945). 

Tanytarsus subtendens Townes, 1945 is now Endochironomus subtendens (Townes, 1945). 

Tanytarsus protextus Townes, 1945 is now a junior synonym of Tribelos jucundum (Walker, 1848). 

Tendipes atroviridis Townes, 1945 is now Chironomus atroviridis (Townes, 1945). 

Tendipes biseta Townes, 1945 is now Chironomus biseta (Townes, 1945). 

Tendipes carus Townes, 1945 is now Goeldichironomus carus (Townes, 1945). 

Tendipes ochreatus Townes, 1945 is now Chironomus ochreatus (Townes, 1945). 

Tendipes tuberculatus Townes, 1945 is now Chironomus tuberculatus (Townes, 1945). 

Ablabesmyia tarella Roback, 1971 is a junior synonym of Ablabesmyia mallochi (Walley, 1925). 

Tanypus bellus Loew, 1866 is now Procladius bellus (Loew, 1866). 

Tanypus brooksi Gerry, 1933 is nomen dubium in Pentaneurini. 

Tanypus concinnus Coquillett, 1895 is now Coelotanypus concinnus (Coquillett, 1895). 

Tanypus cornuticaudatus Walley, 1925 is now Helopelopia cornuticaudata (Walley, 1925). 

Tanypus currani Walley, 1925 is now Conchapelopia currani (Walley, 1925). 

Tanypus flavicinctus Loew, 1861 is a junior synonym of Clinotanypus pinguis (Loew, 1861). 

Tanypus garretti Walley, 1925 is a junior synonym of Psectrotanypus dyari (Coquillett, 1902). 

Tanypus hirtipennis Loew, 1866 is a junior synonym of Macropelopia decedens (Walker, 1848). 

Tanypus humeralis Loew, 1866 is now Coelotanypus humeralis (Loew, 1866). 

Tanypus mallochi Walley, 1925 is now Ablabesmyia mallochi (Walley, 1925). 

Tanypus peleensis Walley, 1926 is now Ablabesmyia peleensis (Walley, 1926). 

Tanypus pilicaudatus Walley, 1925 is now Helopelopia pilicaudata (Walley, 1925). 

Tanypus pilosellus Loew, 1866 is now Labrundinia pilosella (Loew, 1866). 

Tanypus pinguis Loew, 1861 is now Clinotanypus pinguis (Loew, 1861). 

Tanypus prudens Walley, 1925 is a junior synonym of Ablabesmyia pulchripennis (Lundbeck, 1898). 

Tanypus pusillus Loew, 1866 is a junior synonym of Procladius bellus (Loew, 1866). 

Tanypus scapularis Loew, 1866 is now Coelotanypus scapularis (Loew, 1866). 

Tanypus thoracicus Loew, 1866 is a junior synonym of Clinotanypus pinguis (Loew, 1861). 

Tanypus tricolor Loew, 1861 is now Coelotanypus tricolor (Loew, 1861). 

Thalassomyia setosipennis Wirth, 1947 is valid with the spelling Thalassomya setosipennis. 

21

Acknowledgements 

I am very grateful to Dr. Philip Perkins, Museum 

of Comparative Zoology, for his hospitality during 

my stay, and to Dr. James Hanken and Catherine 

Weisel for helping me organize my visit. 

Thanks also to Martin Spies, Dr. Marion Kotrba, 

Dr. Susana Trivinho-Strixino and Dr. Dalva Matos 

for supporting my application for an Ernst Mayr 

Travel Grant, and to Dr. Alaide Fonseca-Gessner 

for valuable suggestions on the manuscript. Finally, 

I would like to thank Zaki Habib-Gómez for 

checking the English text. The author has received 

financial support from the Ernst Mayr Fund (MCZ 

- Harvard University) and the National Council for 

Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq 

- Brazil). 

References 

Ashe P. & O’Connor J. P. 2009. A world catalogue 

of Chironomidae (Diptera). Part 1. Buchonomyiinae, 

Chilenomyiinae, Podonominae, 

Aphroteniinae, Tanypodinae, Usambaromyiinae, 

Diamesinae, Prodiamesinae and Telmatogetoninae. 

Ireland: The National Museum of 

Ireland, 455 pp. 

Borkent, A. 1984. The systematics and phylogeny 

of the Stenochironomus complex (Xestochironomus, 

Harrisius, and Stenochironomus) 

(Diptera: Chironomidae). - Mem. Entomol. 

Soc. Can. 128: 1-269. 

Coquillett, D. W. 1895. Descriptions of new genera 

and species, pp. 307-319. In C. W. Johnson, 

Diptera of Florida. - Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. 

Philadelphia 47: 303-340. 

Coquillett, D. W. 1901. New Diptera in the U. S. 

National Museum. - Proc. U. S. Natl. Mus. 23: 

593-618. 

Gerry, B. I. 1933. Four new species of Chironomidae 

from the Greater Antilles. - Psyche, 40: 

94-97. 

Johannsen, O. A. 1905. Aquatic nematocerous 

Diptera II, pp. 76-315. In: Needham, J. G., 

Morton, K. J. and Johannsen, O. A. May flies 

and midges of New York. Third report on 

aquatic insects. - Bull. N. Y. State Mus. Sci. 

Serv. 86: 7-352. 

22 

Loew, H. 1861. Diptera Americae septentrionalis 

indigena. Centuria prima. - Berl. Entomol. Z. 

5: 307-359. 


indigena. Centuria quinta. - Berl. Entomol. Z. 

8: 49-104. 


indigena. Centuria septima. - Berl. Entomol. Z. 

10: 1-54. 

Oliver, D. R., Dillon, M. E. & Cranston, P. S. 1990. 

A catalog of Nearctic Chironomidae. - Agric. 

Can. Publ. 1857/B: 1-89. 

Osten Sacken, C. R. 1877. Western Diptera: description 

of new genera and species of Diptera 

from the region west of the Mississippi and 

especially from California. - Bull. U. S. Geol. 

Geogr. Surv. Terr. 3: 189-354. 

Roback, S. S. 1963. New Neotropical Coelotanypus 

(Diptera, Tendipedidae, Pelopiinae). - Entomol. 

news, 74: 169-176. 

Roback, S. S. 1971. The subfamily Tanypodinae 

in North America. - Monog. Acad. Nat. Sci. 

Phila., 17: 1-410. 

Spies, M. & F. Reiss. 1996. Catalog and bibliography 

of Neotropical and Mexican Chironomidae 

(Insecta, Diptera). - Spixiana Suppl. 22: 

61-119. 

Thompson, F. C. and T. Pape. 2010. Systema Dipterorum, 

Version 1.0. http://www.diptera. 

org/, accessed Feb. 2011. 

Townes, H. K. 1945. The Nearctic species of Tendipedini 

[Diptera, Tendipedidae (= Chironomidae)]. 

- Am. Midl. Nat. 34: 1-206. 

Walley, G. S. 1925. New Canadian Chironomidae 

of the genus Tanypus (Dip.) - Can. entomol. 57: 

271-278. 

Walley, G. S. 1926. New Canadian Chironomidae. 

- Can. entomol. 58: 64-65. 

Wirth, W. W. 1947. Notes on the genus Thalassomyia 

Schiner, with description of two new 

species (Diptera: Tendipedidae). - Proc. Hawaii 

Entomol. Soc. 13: 117-139.

Short CommuniCationS 

Pseudodiamesa nivosa or arctica? A confounded story of a midge moustache and an 

attempt at some taxonomic orthodontics 

Endre Willassen 

University Museum of Bergen, Postboks 7800, NO5020 Bergen, Norway. 

E-mail: endre.willassen@zmb.uib.no 

Midges of Pseudodiamesa are fascinating examples of insect adaptations to cold environments. Adults may 

be observed when they have emerged shortly after spring ice-thaw in mountain lakes and brooks. In extreme 

cases this may be as late as mid October in western Norwegian mountains when winter precipitation 

with snow has been particularly high. Adults may be swarming when temperature and wind allow them. 

Otherwise they will sit in the snow or some other substrate waiting for better times. The immature stages 

can also stand up against some rough treatment from the environment. I have seen larvae, deflated and looking 

like miniature sausage peels, trapped and completely surrounded by ice, when they recover from the 

melting ice and regain their body shape and vitality within minutes after the ice has thawed around them. 

Oliver (1959) advanced the idea that the North American Pseudodiamesa arctica is so morphologically 

distinctive by comparison with the European P. nivosa that it qualified for a subgenus of its own which he 

called Pachydiamesa. In the larvae, the alleged exclusive possession of a pair of labral lamellae (Oliver 

1959, 1983) has since figured in some papers as the key character to identify P. arctica from other Pseudodiamesa 

larvae. 

It was particularly the observation of such labral lamellae (see Figure 1C) that led Schnell and Willassen 

(1991) in a technical report to literally follow Oliver (1959, 1983) with some hesitation and to identify 

Pseudodiamesa arctica in Norwegian mountains. Moreover, since we were unable to observe clear cut D. 

nivosa characteristics as laid out by Oliver (1959) in the details of wing morphology, leg ratio and male genitalia 

we even suggested that the two taxa might possibly represent the same species. These were arguments 

to back up our identification but they were never intended as a formal nomenclatorial act of synonymisation. 

We did not have N. American material available for comparison and we also pointed to the taxonomic 

challenge that the candidate senior synonym, P. arctica, was originally described from a female. Basically 

we simply applied the authoritative taxonomic identification literature of that time to conclude that Pseudodiamesa 

arctica in the sense of Oliver was also observable in Norway. The only problem was that we could 

not see the difference from P. nivosa. When I brought specially fixed larvae to Novosibirsk for karyotype 

identification, Dr. Irina Kerkis identified the species to P. nivosa from chromosome characteristics. It is still 

not clear to me whether there was also a karyotype characterisation of something called P. arctica in place 

to compare with, but the cytotaxonomic interpretation of P. nivosa (at least at the time) corresponded to a 

species that actually has the “moustache” we would call labral lamellae (Figure 1C), although according to 

Oliver (1959, 1983) nivosa was not supposed to have one. 

Curiously, in another paper by Oliver (1976:1054) also including a record of P. arctica from Peary Land 

Greenland, there is no mention of labral lamella as a distinguishing character, - simply a statement about 

nivosa and arctica being very similar and that: “Based on a single larva of nivosa available for study, it may 

be possible to separate the larvae of the two species by the shape of the procercus.”. 

In the description of P. nivosa larvae from the Alps, Schmid’s drawings (1993:49, fig.21D) clearly show the 

labral lamellae that P. nivosa is not supposed to have. Although Schmid refers to Oliver (1983) in his list 

of taxonomic literature he states, contrary to Oliver without further comment, that the labral lamellae are 

the character that separates P. nivosa from P. branickii. So how can we actually identify arctica and nivosa 

from branickii larvae? 

In a more recent taxonomic review of Pseudodiamesa Ilyashuk et al. (2010) refer to Makarchenko’s (1985 

23

C 

D 

A 

Figure 1. A) Epipharynx of Pseudodiamesa nivosa larva as pictured by Ilyashuk et al. (2010: fig. 1C). The present 

author has added arrows to indicate the two pairs of chaetulae basales flanking seven scalelike teeth (also marked by 

the present author). B) Detail of Pseudodiamesa nivosa larva according to Ilyashuk et al .’s (2010) fig. 1D. The present 

author has pointed an arrow to the labral lamella which according to Ilyashuk et al. is absent in P. nivosa. Details of 

Pseudodiamesa larva from Norway that would key out to P. arctica from Oliver (1983) and to P. nivosa from Schmid 

(1993) Epipharynx has seven scale like teeth (1-7) and a pair of comb shaped labral lamellae (LL). Notice also that 

the right sensilla S1 is apically bifid while the left is simple. D) Photostack of the ventral part of epipharynx showing 

chaetulae laterales, the two pairs of chaetulae basales (arrows, also see Figures 1A, D, E) and teeth number 1 and 7. E) 

The same as D but with focus constrained more dorsally showing odd number symmetry of (totally 7) teeth next to tooth 

number 4 (Photos: C-E by E. Willassen) 

24 

B 

E

et seq.) studies of the pecten epipharyngis stating that: “The pecten epipharyngis of the 

P. nivosa-group larvae consists of an even number, namely 3–4 pairs, of broad, elongate, apically blunt 

scales (fig. 1c, d), but that of the P. branickii-group larvae is characterized by an odd number, namely seven 

scales (fig. 1e, f)”. However, a closer look at their fig. 1c (see Figure 1A) shows that there are indeed seven 

epipharynx teeth (my numbering) in the specimen they identified as P. nivosa. There is no doubt that the 

counting of these structures can sometimes be a challenge, particularly in somewhat squashed microslide 

preparations. But in this case it seems pretty obvious to me. If we use the pairs of distinctive chaetulae basales 

as landmarks to define the outer margins of the pecten (Figures 1A, D), we see that there is symmetry 

around only one median tooth, the one which is numbered 4 in Figures 1 C-D. In other words, the assertion 

by Ilyashuk et al (2010) stating that all previous authors (including Oliver, Schmid, Janecek) were wrong 

when counting seven epipharynx scales in species other than those of the branickii – group does not seem 

justified. 

Ilyashuk et al. (2010) are also maintaining the notion that the labral lamellae are a unique feature of P. artica 

larvae. If so, we should conclude that Schmid also has documented presence of P. arctica in the Alps, but 

then what should we do with P. nivosa? I find it intriguing that while Ilyashuk et al. (2010) repeatedly state 

that P. arctica is the only species with labral lamellae, they also show a photo (Ilyashuk et al. 2010:fig.1D) 

of what they call P. nivosa in which the specimen clearly seems to possess a labral lamella (Figure 1B). 

Was this taxonomically important detail (as this paper testifies) overlooked by the authors or was it perhaps 

being interpreted as another type of structure? It is tempting to suspect that when Oliver (1983) described 

some Pseudodiamesa larvae (other than arctica) as having lamelliform SI setae, he may perhaps actually 

have referred to labral lamellae. Could this be one of the loose ends of the confounding problems with the 

taxonomy of Pseudodiamesa? With admittedly limited experience with Pseudodiamesa larvae from other 

parts of the world I have never come across what I would describe as lamelliform SI setae in Pseudodiamesa. 

What I have seen, however, is that the apically bifid SI claimed to be unique (Ilyashuk et al. 2010) to the 

American endemic P. pertinax may also be observed in Norwegian larvae with labral lamellae (Figure 1C). 

The specimen pictured here actually has a split on the right SI only. It is a sort asymmetry that is not uncommon 

in setae of immature Diamesinae so I would be sceptical to use it a litmus test of species identity. 

The observation that Ilyashuk et al. (2010) may have got the numbers of epipharynx teeth wrong in what 

they call nivosa unfortunately also leaves their claim that arctica has eight epipharynx teeth somewhat 

suspect. So are arctica and nivosa really separable as larvae? In his key to subgenera Oliver (1983) also 

included eight anal setae on the procercus as a distinctive feature for arctica. Figure 2A shows a specimen 

from Norway that would key out to Pachydiamesa arctica because it has 8 anal setae and labral lamellae. 

So why is it a problem with this record of P. arctica from Europe? Obviously because the differences between 

the larvae of arctica and nivosa described by Oliver (1983) and recently reiterated by Ilyashuk et al. 

(2010) don’t appear to hold up and the relationship between the two nominal taxa is still in need of critical 

review. 

But Pseudodiamesa arctica and P. nivosa could of course be inseparable in the larval stage and still be different 

species if we could observe distinctive and consistent differences in the adults. Ilyashuk et al. (2010) 

refer to a poster presentation by Makarchenko (2009) in which the statement is that P. arctica differs from P. 

nivosa by a more finger like distal part of the gonostylus and a posterolateral projection of the ninth tergite. 

However, the latter feature (Figure 2C) is also observable in specimens from Norway (Figure 2B) and does 

not seem to be a consistent difference although a few idiosyncratic drawings in the taxonomic literature 

could perhaps leave that impression. Moreover, when comparing Oliver’s (1959) drawing of P. arctica 

(Figure 2C) with specimens from Norway (Figures 2B) I am unable to see that P. arctica in the sense of 

Oliver (1959) is strikingly different and more finger like in the shape of the gonostylus. Is P. arctica sensu 

Oliver (1983) actually the same as P. arctica sensu Makarchenko (2009) and how do they relate to P.arctica 

sensu Malloch and to P. nivosa sensu authors? 

I am probably contributing my share to what seems to be a present state of chaos in Pseudodiamesa taxonomy 

by maintaining that I still cannot see the difference between the species that European workers have 

called P. nivosa and P. arctica in the sense of Oliver (1959). In anticipation of a more substantial documentation 

than a conference abstract I would also feel uncomfortable by having to choose between arctica 

and nivosa based on a critial value of 0.56 in leg ratio (Makarchenko 2009). It seems to me that molecular 

data could help in getting us out of some of the troubled waters that Pseudodiamesa taxonomy appears to 

be in these days. But even more so important is it that we try to resolve the taxonomic problems that may 

25

A 

B C 

Figure 2. A) Procerci of Pseudodiamesa larva from Norway that would key out to P. arctica from Oliver (1983). Arrows 

point to eight anal setae. B) Male hypopygium of Pseudodiamesa from Norway with arrow pointing to caudolateral 

projection of tergite which according to Makarchenko (2009) is a key character to separate P. arctica from P. nivosa. C) 

Drawing of P. arctica hypopygium from Oliver (1959). The present author disputes that the gonostyli are conspicuosly 

more fingerlike than in the species that has been known as P. nivosa in Europe. (Photos: A,B by E. Willassen) 

be rooted in ill-defined characters, misconceptions based on mismatching terminologies and particularly 

from blind acceptance of old taxonomic decisions that did not seem to stand the test of additional material 

and new observations. We have never been better equipped technologically and electronic pictures are a 

blessing. 

References 

Ilyashuk, B.P., Ilyashuk, E.A., Makarchenko, E.A., Heiri, O. 2010. Midges of the genus Pseudodiamesa 

Goetghebuer (Diptera, Chironomidae): current knowledge and palaeoecological perspective. - Journal 

of Paleolimnology 44: 667-676. DOI: 10.1007/s10933-010-9446-0. (For higher resolution pictures see: 

http://www.springerimages.com/img/Images/Springer/JOU=10933/VOL=2010.44/ISU=2/ART=9446/ 

MediaObjects/LARGE_10933_2010_9446_Fig1_HTML.jpg) 

Makarchenko, E.A. 1985. Chironomids of the Far East of USSR. The subfamilies Podonominae, Diames- 

26

inae, and Prodiamesinae (Diptera, Chironomidae). DVNC AN SSSR, Vladivostok. 

Makarchenko, E.A. 2009. Pseudodiamesa nivosa (Goetghebuer, 1928) is not synonym of Pseudodiamesa 

arctica (Malloch, 1919) (Diptera: Chironomidae). XVII International Symposium on Chironomidae, 

July 5–10, 2009, Nankai University, Tianjin, China. Program and Abstracts, p 71. http://entomology. 

nankai.edu.cn/17chiro/program_abstr_Ver.6.30.pdf 

Oliver, D.R. 1959. Some Diamesini (Chironomidae) from the Nearctic and Palearctic. - Entomologisk Tidskrift 

80:48–64. 

Oliver, D.R. 1976. Chironomidae (Diptera) of Char Lake, Cornwallis Island, N.W.T., with descriptions of 

two new species. - Canadian Entomologist 108:1053–1064. 

Schmid, P.E. 1993. A key to the larval Chironomidae and their instars from Austrian Danube Region 

streams and rivers. Part I, Diamesinae, Prodiamesinae and Orthocladiinae. Federal Institute for Water 

Quality of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wien, Austria. 

Schnell, Ø.A., Willassen, E. 1991. Fjærmyggarten Pseudodiamesa arctica (Malloch) i to høyfjellsreservoarer 

(The chironomid species Pseudodiamesa arctica (Malloch) in two high mountain reservoirs). 

Report No 76, Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University 

of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 

Moustached Pseudodiamesa is still in waiting for a modern cytogenetic approach 

and a taxonomic revision: a reply to Willassen 

Boris P. Ilyashuk1 1, 2 

& Elena A. Ilyashuk 

1 Institute of North Industrial Ecology Problems, Kola Science Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences, 14 

Fersman St., Apatity, Murmansk reg. 184209, Russia. E-mail: ilboris@yandex.com 

2 Institute of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstraße 25, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria. 

E-mail: elena.ilyashuk@uibk.ac.at 

Beginning with the study of chironomid subfossils in Schwarzsee ob Sölden, the Austrian Alps (Ilyashuk 

et al. 2011), we have tried to compile all available information about aquatic invertebrates in this high-alpine 

lake. To our surprise, we found rather contradictory data on the Pseudodiamesa species. Janecek (1998) 

reported that P. nivosa inhabits the lake whereas Raddum et al. (2004) have found that the Pseudodiamesa 

subfossils from a short core taken in the lake are represented by P. branickii. To all appearances, difficulties 

in the identification of Pseudodiamesa subfossils resulted in the mentioned taxonomic inconsistency. The 

following study of contemporary Pseudodiamesa larvae and their subfossils showed that the genus is represented 

by P. nivosa in this lake (Ilyashuk et al. 2011). However, we encountered a number of contradictions 

in the available literature for identification of contemporary Pseudodiamesa larvae. Some of them are noted 

in Willassen (2011). In Ilyashuk et al. (2010), we summarise current experience in splitting the genus into 

two intra-genus morphotypes within the subfossil material from different Arctic and Alpine regions. Later, 

working with subfossils from another high-alpine lake, we got chironomid remains of much better preservation 

and found that the P. nivosa subfossils have the labral lamellae and the pecten epipharyngis consisting 

of seven scales (Fig. 1), as is described in Schmid (1993). The observations by Willassen (2011) based on 

contemporary material confirm it as well. Nevertheless, we would like to emphasize that the mentum is a 

well-preserved structure in subfossil specimens and can be one of the best morphological characters for differentiating 

Pseudodiamesa species-group morphotypes in subfossil material (Ilyashuk et al. 2010). 

The current state of knowledge on the genus Pseudodiamesa does not allow us to confirm or disprove 

hypotheses concerning synonymisation of some species. Schnell and Willassen (1991) suppose that P. 

nivosa is synonymous with P. arctica and Makarchenko (1998) assumes that P. nepalensis is a synonym of 

P. nivosa. Both hypotheses are realistic and testable, taking into account modern cytogenetic approaches 

and techniques. Unfortunately, the discussion in Willassen (2011) does not add new data to check the hypothesis 

about synonymisation of P. nivosa and P. arctica. However, there are the first successful steps in 

resolving some Pseudodiamesa taxonomic problems. A recent comparative study of karyotypes of some 

27

Figure 1. Pseudodiamesa nivosa (Goetghebuer) subfossils from a high-mountain lake in the Italian Alps: A) pecten 

epipharyngis (PE); B) pecten epipharyngis (PE) and labral lamella (LL); C) labral lamella. 

Pseudodiamesa species, conducted by Ermolaeva (2005) and supervisored by Dr. E. Makarchenko and Dr. 

I. Kiknadze, provides evidence that P. nivosa, P. stackelbergi, and P. latistyla are valid species. Moreover, 

comparative karyological analysis of P. branickii, collected from different regions in Eurasia (Germany, 

Bulgaria, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Far East, and Japan) revealed that there are at least four distinct chromosomal 

races, which may represent sibling species corresponding to the P. branickii morphotype (Ermolaeva 

2005). Hopefully, other species of this genus will be included in subsequent comparative karyological 

analyses. 

References 

Ermolaeva, O.V. 2005. Citotaksonomicheskiy analiz vidov podsemeystv Diamesinae i Prodiamesinae: 

(Diptera, Chironomidae) [Cytotaxonomic analysis of species of the subfamilies Diamesinae and Prodiamesinae 

(Diptera, Chironomidae)]. Ph.D. Thesis, Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia. 

239 p. 

Ilyashuk, B.P., Ilyashuk, E.A., Makarchenko, E.A. and Heiri, O. 2010. Midges of the genus Pseudodiamesa 

Goetghebuer (Diptera, Chironomidae): current knowledge and palaeoecological perspective. - Journal 

of Paleolimnology 44: 667–676. 

Ilyashuk, E.A., Koinig, K.A., Heiri, O., Ilyashuk B.P. and Psenner, R. 2011. Holocene temperature variations 

at a high-altitude site in the Eastern Alps: a chironomid record from Schwarzsee ob Sölden, Austria. - 

Quaternary Science Reviews 30: 176–191. 

Janecek, B. 1998. Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, Taxonomie und Ökologie aquatischer wirbelloser Organismen, 

Teil V. Diptera: Chironomidae (Zuckmücken), Larvenstadien mitteleuropäischer Gattungen und 

österreichischer Arten, Bestimmung von 4. Universität für Bodenkultur, Abteilung Hydrobiology, Wien, 

Austria. 117 p. 

Makarchenko, E.A. 1998. Chironomidy podsemeystva Diamesinae (Diptera, Chironomidae) severnogo polushariya: 

sistematika, biologiya, biogeografiya [Chironomids of the subfamily Diamesinae (Diptera, 

Chironomidae) of the Northern Hemisphere: systematics, biology, and biogeography]. Dr.Sci.Thesis, 

FEB of Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, Russia. 518 p. 

Raddum, G., Erikson, L., Fott, J., Halvorsen, G.A., Heegaard, E., Kohout, L., Kifinger, B., Schaumberg, J., 

Maetze, A. and Zahn, H. 2004. Recovery from acidification of invertebrate fauna at ICP Water sites in 

Europe and North America. ICP Waters report 75/2004, Norwegian Institute for Water Research, Oslo, 

Norway. 

Schmid, P.E. 1993. A key to the larval Chironomidae and their instars from Austrian Danube Region 

streams and rivers. Part I, Diamesinae, Prodiamesinae and Orthocladiinae. Federal Institute for Water 

Quality of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wien. 

Schnell, Ø.A. and Willassen, E. 1991. Fjærmyggarten Pseudodiamesa arctica (Malloch) i to høyfjellsreservoarer 

(The chironomid species Pseudodiamesa arctica (Malloch) in two high mountain reservoirs). 

Report No 76, Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University 

of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 

Willassen, E. 2011. Pseudodiamesa nivosa or arctica? A confounded story of a midge moustache and an 

attempt at some taxonomic orthodontics. - Chironomus Newsletter on Chironomidae Research 24: XX. 

28

Pseudodiamesa nivosa (Goetghebuer, 1928) is not a synonym of Pseudodiamesa 

arctica (Malloch, 1919), but what about the separation of immature stages of these 

species? 

Eugenyi A. Makarchenko 

Institute of Biology and Soil Science of Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, Russia. 

E-mail: makarchenko@biosoil.ru 

As I showed in my poster “Pseudodiamesa nivosa (Goetghebuer, 1928) is not synonym of Pseudodiamesa 

arctica (Malloch, 1919)” at the XVIIth Chironomid symposium in Nankai University (Makarchenko, 

2009), both are a good and valid species and can be separated by some features of male imagines adduced 

below. 

1. LR 0.52–0.54. Basal lobe of gonocoxite with narrow and triangular or roundish triangular apex. Tergite 

1 

IX with projection of posterior-lateral angle. Gonostylus in apical 1/3 finger-shaped, with roundish apex ... 

P. arctica (Mall.) (Fig. 3). 

– LR 1 0.65–0.69. Basal lobe of gonocoxite with wide and roundish apex. Tergite IX without projection 

of posterior-lateral angle. Apical 1/3 of gonostylus of different shape, with beak-shaped apex ... P. nivosa 

(Goetgh.) (Figs 1–2). 

Figures 1–3. Male imagines of Pseudodiamesa nivosa (Goethebuer) from Norway (1–2) and Pseudodiamesa arctica 

(Malloch) from Devon Island of Canada (3). 1, 3 – total view of hypopygium, from above; 2 – gonocoxite and gonostylus. 

Scale bars are 100 µm. 

29

The hardest problem is to separate larvae of P. nivosa and P. arctica. Nobody has studied numerous specimens 

of larvae and has not checked variation of some larval features, namely shape, presence or absence of 

labral lamellae. When I studied larvae of the nivosa group, sometimes I checked labral lamellae, sometimes 

not, but in the same population of the same river. Yes, for deciding taxonomic problems of these and other 

species of Pseudodiamesa we need to revise the species by larvae, pupae and imago from various places of 

the Holarctic region using traditional morphological methods and karyology and DNA analysis. Also we 

need to study biology and ecology of these species because it can help us in deciding taxonomic problems. 

At first we need to get fresh material of P. nivosa and P. arctica from type localities, which for the first 

is the French Alps and for the second is Arctic Canada. I think it is a good joint work for an international 

project and a team of chironomidologists, karyologists, molecular biologists and ecologists. I think we must 

and can decide this interesting problem but only all together. 

Let us co-operate! 

References 

Makarchenko, E.A. 2009. Pseudodiamesa nivosa (Goetghebuer, 1928) is not synonym of Pseudodiamesa 

arctica (Malloch, 1919) (Diptera: Chironomidae). Program and abstracts XVII International 

Symposium on Chironomidae. July 5–10, 2009. Nankai University, Tianjin, China: 71. 

Typical types – a swan song? Observations on chironomids in the Linnean collections, 

and corresponding general considerations 

Martin Spies 

Zoologische Staatssammlung München, Münchhausenstr. 21, 81247 München, Germany. 

E-mail: spies@zi.biologie.uni-muenchen.de 

Introduction 

At the 18th International Symposium on Chironomidae in Trondheim, Norway, this past July I gave a 

short presentation to draw attention to an online resource that has become available recently. On webpages 

provided by the Linnean Society of London, under http://www.linnean-online.org/view/insects/tipula.html, 

a list of electronic links can be found which use scientific species names made available by Linnaeus in 

original combination with the genus name Tipula Linnaeus. Each link leads to a series of digital images of 

pinned adult specimens still preserved in the Linnean collections under the corresponding species name. 

On a visit to London in August I then had the opportunity – thanks to the Society’s honorary curator of 

insects and two curators of Diptera at The Natural History Museum – to examine all Linnean specimens 

known to be extant and to represent species of Chironomidae. Some of the results as presented below are 

more or less preliminary, as so far the animals could be viewed merely at relatively low magnification, in 

the dry-pinned and shriveled condition in which they have been preserved all along. State-of-the-science 

microscopic (and possibly genetic) analysis could be performed only if permission for ‘destructive sampling’ 

is applied for, and granted by, the Linnean Society. 

Chironomids in the Linnean collections 

The chironomid material comprises five specimens under three species names: 1 male each under Tipula 

littoralis L., 1758 and T. monilis L., 1758, and 1 male plus 2 females under T. plumosa L., 1758. Only one 

specimen per species name is accompanied by a hand-written name label (see the online images referred to 

above; the scale rulers shown are graded in mm) but, unless there is evidence to the contrary in a particular 

case, all specimens are equally eligible for consideration as original type material (Day & Fitton 1978; the 

second author now is the responsible curator). 

The male under T. littoralis is well-preserved in general, but the posterior end of the abdomen is missing 

and probably lost. The wing crossvein RM is darkened; the venation pattern and tibial armament are as in 

30

Chironomini; the fore tarsi are distinctly bearded. The taxonomically relevant evidence is consistent with 

what Linnaeus treated as the one of his two variant forms of T. littoralis that had been collected in forests 

(“habitat in nemoribus”), e.g. under the variant designators “#1136” in Linnaeus (1746) and “β” in Linnaeus 

(1760). An alternative possibility of connection to the name Tipula arundineti L., 1760 – raised by 

a second name label apparently added to the pin relatively recently – can be ruled out, as several observable 

morphological features differ significantly from Linnaeus’ diagnosis for T. arundineti. In any case, 

without the specimen’s hypopygium, current knowledge of external morphology does not allow positive 

identification. In summary, T. littoralis should remain a nomen dubium in Chironomus Meigen or, more 

conservatively, in Chironomini. 

The male under T. monilis L., judging from what can be evaluated in the pinned condition, looks consistent 

with the current and long-standing interpretation of the described species as a member of Ablabesmyia 

Johannsen. However, there is reason to suspect that it might not represent the taxonomic species for which 

the name A. monilis has been used. For instance, compared to the figures of tibial spurs in Fittkau (1962: 

422), especially the midleg spur configuration of the Linnean specimen is like the one ascribed to A. phatta 

(Egger), not like that labeled “Ablabesmyia monilis” by Fittkau. A slide-mount of the hypopygium would 

be necessary and likely sufficient to clarify whether this Linnean specimen belongs to any currently recognized 

species of Ablabesmyia and, if so, to which one. 

The third Linnean lot, under T. plumosa L., may raise the most critical questions. As I had suspected from 

the online images and mentioned at the Trondheim symposium, the three corresponding specimens appear 

to belong to a species in the currently recognized subgenus Chironomus (Camptochironomus). If so, 

they would be incompatible with the long-standing application of the name C. plumosus (L.) to a species 

complex or species in Chironomus (Chironomus). From inspection of the pinned material the Camptochironomus 

identification is certain so far only for the male in the series, but the two females have not shown 

any contradicting evidence. Further support comes from the information on the species’ larva and sampling 

sites given by Linnaeus (e.g. 1746: 333 under “#1135”, referred to by Linnaeus 1758: 587 under “plumosa”; 

see also the next-following reference there). The adult and larval specimens of Tipula plumosa personally 

examined by Linnaeus (1758) had come from two sites in the Baltic Sea along the coasts of southern Sweden 

(see also Hirvenoja 2006: 374, and 376 left column). Linnaeus (1746) described the larvae as showing 

ventral tubules of the posterior abdomen longer than the posterior parapods. This fits the ‘plumosus type’ 

known, e.g., from larvae currently placed in Camptochironomus, but not the ‘semireductus type’ shown by 

brackish-water specimens subsumed in recent taxonomic concepts to which the name C. plumosus (L.) has 

been applied. 

Figure 1. Chironomus tentans Fabricius; paralectotype (ZMUC, Copenhagen), lateral view. The lectotype, also an 

adult female, has been slide-mounted (Hirvenoja 2006). Photo by M. Kotrba & M. Spies. 

31

Figure 2. Chironomus tentans Fabricius; paralectotype, 

dorsal view. Photo by M. Kotrba & M. Spies. 

As in the case of Tipula monilis, positive species 

identification of the Linnean specimens of T. plumosa 

would require microscopic evaluation of at least 

partial slide mounts. However, the special permission 

that would have to be obtained for such analysis 

is not the only obstacle here, as shall be discussed in 

the following text sections. 

Types to guide usage, or vice versa? 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

certainly is not the best guideline one could think 

of, but we cannot do without such a framework, and 

the Code is the only one around that has long been 

applied and can be applied reasonably. In its currently 

effective edition (ICZN 1999) the Code has 

attempted to serve the interests of scientific communication 

by allowing the application of taxon 

names to be influenced more by their recent usage 

rather than exclusively by criteria tied to the respective 

original publication. While this more flexible 

approach can be beneficial in some cases (for one 

example, see Spies & Sæther 2004: 27, second paragraph 

from top), it seems questionable whether the 

apparent conflict between the Linnean specimens of 

Tipula plumosa and the usage of Chironomus plumosus 

constitutes such a case. 

After my presentation in Trondheim I heard the ex- 

pected argument that any change to the application of the name Chironomus plumosus to make the latter 

reflect the taxonomic identity of the Linnean specimens would cause significant difficulties with accessing 

corresponding data published earlier not only in taxonomy, but also in ecology, faunistics, etc. While this 

argument, of course, has its merit in principle, it seems to miss the essential mark here. With the possible 

exception of identifications based on karyological/cytological evidence (i.e. on the larval giant chromosome 

banding patterns), ‘recent usage’ (whichever way one might define this term) of the name C. plumosus 

can hardly be seen as anywhere near unanimous and stable. Instead, wherever identification as C. plumosus 

was not based on karyological determinations, and especially wherever the methods or references used to 

arrive at such identification were not made sufficiently clear, one cannot determine reliably to which of the 

species in the Chironomus plumosus sibling species aggregate (e.g., Hirvenoja 2006) the corresponding 

data actually apply. Incidentally, for the same reason we used to be unable to address the issues – much 

more interesting to the biologist than matters of nomenclature – which species Linnaeus had encountered, 

whether it still lives where he found it, why not if it does not, and so on. 

Consequently, it is quite doubtful that there has been any “prevailing usage” (ICZN 1999) of the name C. 

plumosus, and thus any corresponding body of reliable biological data, that is definable and significant 

enough so that it could or should be protected in place of original facts such as the taxonomic identity of 

the type material. On the contrary, it seems that recognizing the Linnean specimens as syntypes would not 

decrease but even increase stability of nomenclature and quality of the corresponding dataset, by finally 

providing a basis for reproducible species identifications in all life stages, where previously only larvae 

could be assigned to a ‘cytospecies’, the name for which has not been tied to any reproducible voucher. 

It can be debated whether the current guidelines governing typification – e.g. the selection, designation, 

safe storage and consultation of physical vouchers such as type specimens – have been sufficient or require 

adaptation to progress in taxonomic methods. Conceivably, the assignment of type status could be made 

more flexible, instead of forcing taxonomists to work with or around specimens that are original types but 

no longer sufficiently informative. Such modifications could allow subsequent assignment of voucher status 

to carriers of information not included among the original type material, e.g. to specimens of other life 

stages reliably associated later, or to samples on the molecular level. However, this topic would be one for 

a separate discussion (see below) beyond the scope of the present paper. 

32

Evidence versus hearsay 

Have you ever played or watched the game variously called ‘(broken) telephone’, ‘grapevine’, ‘whisper 

down the lane’, etc.? In this pastime enjoyed in numerous variations the world over, information is transmitted 

along a chain of people, with each individual transfer involving two persons only, such that other 

players up or down the line cannot perceive or control the content of any transfer in which they are not 

directly involved. The attraction of this setup to an audience watching this game, e.g. on television, is as 

follows. “Errors typically accumulate in the retellings, so the statement announced by the last player differs 

significantly, and often amusingly, from the one uttered by the first. Some players also deliberately alter 

what is being said in order to guarantee a changed message by the end of it.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 

Chinese_whispers). 

Does this, by ‘chance’, remind you of any tradition that has been going on in chironomid research in general, 

and especially in the large body of literature using names in Chironomus? If it does not, then here is 

an example which also illustrates why identification of the ‘Camptochironomus’ species represented by the 

Linnean specimens under Tipula plumosa is not as easy as one should expect in a taxon, in which no more 

than two valid species names are currently recognized in Europe (Spies & Sæther 2011). 

Basically, all taxonomic distinctions of Camptochironomus species to this day derive from the very brief 

characterizations proposed by Edwards (1929) for two species concepts under the names C. tentans Fabricius, 

1805 and C. pallidivittatus Malloch, 1915. Edwards (1929: 382) stated: “I find there is a small but 

constant difference in the hypopygium, and therefore treat the two as distinct. They superficially resemble 

C. plumosus.” [The latter fact, by the way, could help explain why workers after Linnaeus have misapplied 

Tipula plumosa for species in Chironomus s. str.] Edwards’ diagnoses hardly presented any character state 

distributed discretely between the two supposed species; instead, one was said to be “rather smaller and 

lighter”, with an “anal point rather differently shaped”, and so on. The illustrations provided (op.cit.: 381, 

fig. 12a, b) do not show any full hypopygium as given for many other species in that work, but limit themselves 

to details of the anal point and flanking parts of the anal tergite. As could have become obvious a long 

time ago, the appearance of such parts in a microscope preparation can vary significantly with orientation of 

the specimen in the mount, degree of maceration, pressure when applying the cover slip, etc. No number of 

specimens analysed was given by Edwards to support his claim of a difference “constant” across variation 

to be expected among preparations studied, individuals in a sample, or populations of one or more species. 

Apparently, Edwards (1929) had not seen any type of C. tentans Fabricius or C. pallidivittatus Malloch, but 

merely applied those names from the literature to his British material. In spite of this and the quite obviously 

less than water-tight identifications (see, e.g., Hein & Schmulbach 1971: 458), everyone in the subsequent 

long chain of authors on these and other Camptochironomus species (Townes 1945, Beermann 1955, 

Hein & Schmulbach 1971, Sæther 1977, Shobanov et al. 1999, Langton & Pinder 2007 – to name just a few 

cornerstone examples) have merely continued the game started (in this case) by Edwards, working mostly 

from more or less uncritically accepted information handed down along that line of letters on patient paper. 

To my knowledge I am now the first ever to gather all relevant voucher material (in this case by Fabricius, 

Malloch, and Edwards) for direct comparison. [Incidentally, I also seem to be the first chironomid worker 

since Linnaeus to have looked at his specimens of non-biting midges.] 

As shown repeatedly (e.g. in Spies & Sæther 2004) there is one case like this after another that would have 

to be looked at seriously – which would be necessary if, in contrast to audiences watching ‘whisper’ games, 

our purpose in chironomid research runs a little deeper than trivial amusement. Taking such a hard look, 

then, one cannot help but find that anything we present without truly reproducible evidence is tantamount 

to hearsay or speculation, i.e. essentially unreliable, and does not qualify to be labeled and employed as science. 

If significant portions of the data in any system such as chironomid research are non-reproducible, e.g. 

because they are not based on evidence that remains accessible and observable, then the system is degraded 

from one built on, and aiming for, evidence-based knowledge to one running on mere beliefs. If members of 

a research community like ours are inclined or forced to blindly follow what they have seen in publications 

only, rather than being willing and able to critically test what they examine directly, then entropy inadvertently 

growing underneath a seemingly orderly surface is bound to cause the corresponding data and system 

to deteriorate rather than increase in practical value. 

33

Towards a discussion 

Against the above background, please consider the following questions. 

— Has there not been long-standing, significant imprecision and inconsistency in the application of the 

name Chironomus plumosus? 

— Are situations like this not exactly what typification has been invented for, and with good reason? 

— Does reinterpretation of the name Tipula plumosa L. in accordance with original type specimens not 

constitute a good chance to increase or, rather, finally establish nomenclatural stability in this case, in which 

we have had only superficial semblance of stability, at best? 

— If using and quoting taxonomic names with credit to the authors who have made them available is supposed 

to honor these people, would Linnaeus consider himself honored if we knowingly apply the name 

Chironomus plumosus to a species different from the one he coined it for? 

— How can museums and other institutions – to which many of us would like to be able to look for employment 

– justify to funding agencies, etc., the efforts necessary to build, maintain or even improve the 

collections we would need and like to have at our disposal, if we do not actively and scientifically support 

them in this? Which parts of such collections could be more important to use and support than the holdings 

of type material? 

— Are we allowing too much of chironomid research to run like a game of ‘whispering down the lane’? Or 

are we doing enough to make and keep every important bit we publish scientifically reproducible, so that 

we and others depending on input from us may work with a well-founded and well-growing body of reliable 

and useful information that deserves to be called knowledge? 

It would be most welcome if answers to these questions, arguments supporting or countering any of those 

presented here, or any other constructive contributions, could be exchanged in a wide-open discussion. One 

appropriate forum for this could be the Chironomidae mailing-list (to sign up see https://lists.ansatt.ntnu.no/ 

vm.ntnu.no/info/chironomidae), even though so far the list has seen as poor participation as several other 

potentially highly useful services offered to the chironomid ‘community’. 

In closing, I would like to declare that responses, as well as silence, on the issues raised in this contribution 

will play no small part in determining whether and how I will proceed concerning the Linnean chironomids 

and similar matters. Consequently, if you have an opinion and would like to see it count, then by all means 

do let it be known. 

References 

Beermann, W. 1955. Cytologische Analyse eines Camptochironomus-Artbastards. I. Kreuzungsergebnisse 

und die Evolution des Karyotypus. – Chromosoma 7: 198-259. 

Day, M.C. and Fitton, M.G. 1978. Re-curation of the Linnaean Hymenoptera (Insecta), with a reassessment 

of the taxonomic importance of the collection. – Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 10: 181-198. 

Edwards, F.W. 1929. British non-biting midges (Diptera, Chironomidae). – Transactions of the Royal Entomological 

Society of London 77: 279-430. 

Fittkau, E.J. 1962. Die Tanypodinae (Diptera: Chironomidae). (Die Tribus Anatopyniini, Macropelopiini 

und Pentaneurini). – Abhandlungen zur Larvalsystematik der Insekten 6: 1-453. 

Hein, J. and Schmulbach, J.C. 1971. Intraspecific and interspecific breeding behavior of Chironomus pallidivittatus 

(Dipt., Chironomidae). – Canadian Entomologist 103: 458-464. 

Hirvenoja, M. 2006. Contributions to the taxonomy and ecology of the Chironomus plumosus sibling species 

aggregate (Diptera: Chironomidae): the brackish water populations in the Tvärminne area, Finland. 

– Entomologica Fennica 17: 373-380. 

ICZN = International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. International Code of Zoological 

Nomenclature. Fourth Edition. – International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. xxix 

+ 306 p. 

34

Langton, P.H. and Pinder, L.C.V. 2007. Keys to the adult male Chironomidae of Britain and Ireland. Volumes 

1 and 2. - Freshwater Biological Association, Scientific Publication 64: 239 + 168 p. 

Linnaeus, C. 1746. Fauna svecica sistens animalia sveciae regni: ... – L. Salvius, Stockholm. [xxviii] + 

411 p., 2 pls. 

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, ... Tomus I. Editio decima, reformata. – L. 

Salvius, Stockholm. [iv] + 824 p. 

Linnaeus, C. 1760 (“1761”). Fauna svecica sistens animalia sveciae regni: ... Editio altera, auctior – L. 

Salvius, Stockholm. [48] + 578 p. 

Sæther, O.A. 1977. Female genitalia in Chironomidae and other Nematocera: morphology, phylogenies, 

keys. – Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 197: 1-209. 

Sæther, O.A. and Spies M. 2011. Fauna Europaea: Chironomidae – In: Beuk, P. & T. Pape (eds.) Fauna 

Europaea: Diptera Nematocera. Fauna Europaea version 2.4. Available at: http://www.faunaeur.org/ 

Shobanov, N.A., Kiknadze, I.I. and Butler, M.G. 1999. Palearctic and Nearctic Chironomus (Camptochironomus) 

tentans (Fabricius) are different species (Diptera: Chironomidae). – Entomologica scandinavica 

30: 311-322. 

Spies, M. and Sæther, O.A. 2004. Notes and recommendations on taxonomy and nomenclature of Chironomidae 

(Diptera). – Zootaxa 752: 1-90. 

Townes, H.K., Jr. 1945. The Nearctic species of Tendipedini (Diptera; Tendipedidae (= Chironomidae)). – 

American Midland Naturalist 34: 1-206. 

CHIRONOMUS Newsletter now compliant with the International Code of 

Zoological Nomenclature 

Torbjørn Ekrem 

Co-editor Chironomus Newsletter on Chironomidae Reseach 

Museum of Natural History and Archaeology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, 

Norway. E-mail: torbjorn.ekrem@ntnu.no 

It is a pleasure to inform you that as of this issue, the newsletter complies with article 8.6 of the International 

Code of Zoological Nomenclature. This means that texts published in the newsletter are to be regarded as 

a published work also for the purposes of zoological nomenclature, and that we now welcome papers that 

involve nomenclatorial acts. In order to comply with article 8.6, copies of the newsletter must be deposited 

in at least five major publicly accessible libraries. This and future issues of the CHIRONOMUS Newsletter 

will therefore be printed in a limited number of paper copies and distributed to the libraries listed on page 

two of this issue. We are very pleased that all libraries we contacted were willing to receive and store copies 

of the CHIRONOMUS Newsletter and look forward to receive more taxonomy manuscripts for our Current 

Research section. 

35

Front page Chironomus 24 - Insect Division

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?