your info. regarding the hooked flagellum in Hamatabanus?

The information is in Dr Burger's 1995 "Catalog of Tabanidae North of Mexico" in Contributions on Entomology, International. It can be found under "Proposed Taxonomic Changes" in the beginning of the catalog.

Concerning exilipalpis, he states "the basal flagellomere is enlarged dorsally into a distinct tooth, but it does not project forward as in annularis or carolinensis."

Concerning floridensis, he states "...based on the very broad front slender basal flagellomere without a well-devloped dorsal angle or tooth..."

Concerning quaesitus, he states "...is most like the species with a hooked flagellum, although this characteristic is not present in H. quaesitus."

There are problems.

Walker (1848) described Tabanus scitus.

Osten Sacken (1876) described Tabanus cerastes and commented that Walker's description of scitus "comes nearest to my No. 42, T. cerastes, on account of the structure of the antennae; in other respects the description is unmeaning."

Osten Sacken also thought that Macquart's T. hirtioculatus "may betray the male of my T. cerastes No. 42."

Stone (1938) placed Walker's scitus in the genus Dicladocera, as Dicladocera scita.

Stone also placed Osten Sacken's T. cerastes and Macquart's T. hirtioculatus as synonyms of Walker's scitus.


Here's the problem.
I don't have Macquart's original paper describing Tabanus carolinensis.
However, Osten Sacken (1876) comments that this species (carolinensis) "belongs to the group of T. socius, or perhaps of T. microcepahalus, astutus, etc.?"
These species are nothing like scitus/cerastes/hirtioculatus.

Stone (1938) re-described Macquart's carolinensis and gave a drawing of the face, palp, and antennae. His description and drawings are nothing like scitus/cerastes/hirtioculatus.

So, what is the correct name for Lauren's fly? I would say Hamatabanus scitus.

I think I can shed some light on the problem. Dr. Burger includes two entries for Tabanus carolinensis in the catalog, one authored by (Macquart) and one "of authors, not Macquart." The latter is the one re-described by Stone (1938) and the one Osten Sacken (1876) believed "belongs to the group...etc." Carolinensis, of authors, is Hybomitra difficilis. I later found that Philip (1947) actually discusses this very issue and comes to the same conclusion.

As far as carolinensis (Macquart) is concerned, Philip (1950) in his addendum to the 1947 catalog noted that the cause of the confusion “of authors” was due to the inadequacy of the original description by Macquart. As a result he asked one of the heads of the Natural History Museum in Paris to send him information regarding the syntypes. Upon receiving this info (including diagrams of hooked antennae), Philip determined that Macquart’s original fly was, in fact, conspecific with the genotype of Hamatabanus. He then synonymized scitus (Walker) with carolinensis (Macquart), giving priority to the latter. That is where the matter has stood for the past 58 years.

As a side note, I do have access to Macquart's original description of Tabanus carolinensis. It as, as Philip notes, a bit inadequate just as many of the early descriptions are.

When I originally read your post yesterday, I was much inclined to agree with you. In light of this new information, however, I see no reason to sink Macquart’s species unless another investigation of the syntypes is undertaken and it can be determined that Philip was in error. Thus, I think Hamatabanus carolinensis (Macquart) should be the name of Lauren's fly.

piece of research.
This fly does match a specimen I have identified as H. carolinensis by Pechuman.

very much. I'm glad we could solve this mystery and add to the scope of this wonderful database.