Abstract.  Syrphidae (Diptera) commonly called hoverflies, includes more than 5000 species world‐wide. The aim of this study was to address the systematic position of the disputed elements in the intrafamilial classification of Syrphidae, namely the monophyly of Eristalinae and the placement of Microdontini and Pipizini, as well as the position of particular genera (Nausigaster, Alipumilio, Spheginobaccha). Sequence data from nuclear 28S rRNA and mitochondrial COI genes in conjunction with larval and adult morphological characters of fifty‐one syrphid taxa were analysed using optimization alignment to explore phylogenetic relationships among included taxa. A species of Platypezidae, Agathomyia unicolor, was used as outgroup, and also including one representative (Jassidophaga villosa) of the sister‐group of Syrphidae, Pipunculidae. Sensitivity of the data was assessed under six different parameter values. A stability tree summarized the results. Microdontini, including Spheginobaccha, was placed basally, and Pipizini appeared as the sister‐group to subfamily Syrphinae. The monophyly of subfamily Eristalinae was supported. The results support at least two independent origins of entomophagy in syrphids, and frequent shifts between larval feeding habitats within the saprophagous eristalines.

Recent molecular studies have suggested that the clicking beetle families Elateridae, Eucnemidae, Throscidae, and Cerophytidae evolved in the Jurassic and diversified in the Cretaceous. These studies paid little attention to fossils, using them only as dating tools. The identification of Elateridae fossils is challenging, as external synapomorphies are not known for this family. Elateridae can be identified only as something not belonging to the other related families, all of which have diagnostic synapomorphies. Most subfamilies and tribes of Elateridae do possess definite diagnostic characters, however, making their identification feasible. We checked the 28 Elateridae described from Chinese Mesozoic deposits. Twelve were Elateridae, seven were Eucnemidae, and one was a Throscidae. Three species could be Eucnemidae, but showed aberrant characters. Five species could not be placed and may not belong to Elateroidea at all. On the basis of these results we suggest that all previously described Elateridae fossils should be re-checked. They should be searched for synapomorphies defining Eucnemidae, Throscidae, and Cerophytidae. If such characters are not present, a click beetle type of fossil can be placed in Elateroidae incertae sedis. The Mesozoic Chinese Elateridae fossils all belong to clades that do not exist today, whereas the Mesozoic Eucnemidae subfamilies are extant ones. This may be the source of the disagreement between Elateridae fossil age and datings based on molecular studies. One new combination was made: Desmatus ponomarenkoi (Chang, Kiretjshuk & Ren, 2009) NEW COMBINATION (= Paradesmatus ponomarenkoi Chang, Kirejtshuk & Ren, 2009).

No abstract