Kaszab Zoltán (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 69. (Budapest 1977)
Papp, L.: Notes on some Becker's types (Diptera, Carnidae and Risidae fam. n.)
I experienced several times that while making a preparation of a 50-year old, or of older specimens it was not successful since the abdomen did not stand potash treatment, in some cases even a soaking in water proved disastrous: it fell into pieces). The spiracle pairs 1-6 in the female are within the tergites, spiracle pair 7 is absent. The posterior margin of the very short tergites 6 and 7 bears longer bristles. Tergite 8 is not only short but it is even narrower. Tergite 9 falls into two lateral portions bearing densely set longer hairs. Sternite 1 comparatively large, sternite 2 cranially with only a shallow impression (in contrary with R. mongolica L. PAPP, 1977), sternite 8 (?8 + 9) very striking (Fig. 3): on its anterior, more heavily ehitinized part several backwards pointing thornlets present, on its posterior part the hairs are short or moderately long. This sternal complex both as far as its shape and chaetotaxy are concerned is somewhat asymmetrical and significantly differs from mongolica L. PAPP, 1977. Subanal plate weakly ehitinized, beset with short hairs, cerci absent. It has a characteristically shaped spermatheca, resembling that of mongolica, but obviously much smaller than the same of latter. Some of the cephalic features, thoracic chaetotaxy and more especially the structure of the abdomen of the Risa species so strikingly different from the representatives of the family Milichiidae, where they belonged so far, so that in my opinion they deserve a family to themselves, described hereunder. Risidae fam. n. Type-genus: Risa BECKER, 1907, Zeitsshr. f. syst. Hym. u. Dipt., 7: 404; with typespecies R. longiroslris BECKER, 1907, 1. c. (monotypy). The diagnosis of the family is given in comparison with the features of families Milichiidae, Carnidae, where the genus Risa used to belong, alongside in a comparison with the family of Ephydridae in which I seem to recognize a close affinity with Risidae. Antenna, especially the 1st joint is much longer than that of Milichiidae, Carnidae, no long bristle present on it, arista short, bent, comparatively thick and wholly bare. Antennái grooves absent. Characteristic features in all 4 families: a/ costa disjoint in two places, first: just before r x (at point of conjointment of sc), second: behind humeral vein; b/ anal vein reduced (HENNIG: cw lb + la); c/ vibrissae present. Corresponding with features in Milichiidae, Carnidae 2 pairs of lower orbitals present (though it is somewhat doubtful whether the 2 lower orbitals in Risidae are homologous with the same of the other two families) ; labella strongly elongated, as in Milichiidae : Madizinae species (in contrary to the representatives of Carnidae and Ephydridae). The clypeus of Risidae extraordinarily thin, hairpin-like. The most significant difference from the families Milichiidae, Carnidae is the spiracular pairs 1-6 in the females (in the males obviously 1-5) situating inside the tergites, and that pair 7 is wholly absent, these features are identical in Ephydridae. The females of Milichiidae, Carnidae possess no spermatheca, further, GRIFFITHS (1972) declares that the only ehitinized formation perceptible in Ephydridae is in fact not a spermatheca but the ventral receptacle. Whatever the case is, in this respect, too, Risidae stand closer to Ephydridae than to the other two families. 1 was not able to ascertain whether tergites 6-8 fused (Milichiidae, Carnidae) or absent (Ephydridae) in lack of male material. Further characteristics of Risidae:
