Biodiversity of Scuttle Flies (Diptera: Phoridae) of Interfluves of the Moksha and Sura Rivers (European Russia)
1
Independent Researcher, Diekstr. 6, 33824 Werther, Germany
2
Joint Directorate of the Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park “Smolny”, 430005 Saransk, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(8), 502; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17080502
Submission received: 19 June 2025
/
Revised: 16 July 2025
/
Accepted: 17 July 2025
/
Published: 22 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Animal Diversity)
Simple Summary
The dataset is based on Phoridae specimens collected in the Republic of Mordovia (European Russia) from 2019 to 2024 using six collection methods: hand-held sweep nets, pitfall traps, beer traps, pan traps, Malaise traps, and window traps. The dataset includes 4713 occurrence records from the Republic of Mordovia, comprising a total of 15,701 Phoridae specimens. It provides data on 271 species. We have listed 151 new recorded species from Russia in this list. Currently, the Phoridae fauna of the Republic of Mordovia is among the best-studied in Russia. The distribution of many species has become clearer, with the Mordovia State Nature Reserve demonstrating the highest biodiversity compared to other areas of the region.
Abstract
(1) Background: Phoridae is a relatively large and understudied family of Diptera. Species within this family occupy diverse ecological niches across a wide range of habitats. (2) Methods: The dataset is based on Phoridae specimens collected in the Republic of Mordovia (European Russia). Sampling was conducted from 2019 to 2024 using six collection methods: hand-held sweep nets, pitfall traps, beer traps, pan traps, Malaise traps, and window traps. (3) Results: The dataset includes 4713 occurrence records from the Republic of Mordovia, comprising a total of 15,701 Phoridae specimens. It provides data on 271 species. The highest species richness was recorded in the Mordovia State Nature Reserve (226 species, 83.4%). Fewer species were documented in the fauna of the National Park “Smolny” (177 species, 65.3%), with comparable diversity observed in other parts of the region. Ten species were dominant in the dataset (Megaselia pusilla, Triphleba opaca, Megaselia angusta agg., Diplonevra funebris, Megaselia brevicostalis, Megaselia plurispinulosa, Megaselia minuta, Megaselia lutea, Megaselia lactipennis, and Megaselia flavicans). A total of 139 species were represented by fewer than ten specimens each. Seasonal dynamics varied across habitats: in the Mordovia State Nature Reserve, both species richness and specimen abundance were already high in April, peaking in June. In contrast, in the National Park “Smolny”, peak values were observed in August. (4) Conclusions: We have listed 151 new recorded species from Russia in this list. Currently, the Phoridae fauna of the Republic of Mordovia is among the best-studied in Russia. The distribution of many species has become clearer, with the Mordovia State Nature Reserve demonstrating the highest biodiversity compared to other areas of the region.
Dataset: https://doi.org/10.15468/xr5s2j Accessed via GBIF.org on 12 June 2025
Dataset License: Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License
1. Summary
Global climate change, occurring alongside anthropogenic landscape transformation, has led to a decline in insect populations and abundance [1,2,3,4,5,6]. These processes are being observed worldwide, despite the critical role insects play in ecosystem functioning and the services they provide [7,8,9]. As a result, significant efforts have been undertaken in recent decades to study insect ecology and population dynamics, with the aim of improving management strategies and conservation measures.
One particularly important issue is the inventory and documentation of insect taxonomic diversity. The scale and current pace of data collection may exceed the capacity of professional entomologists to efficiently store, manage, and analyze the data. A lack of expertise and interpretative capacity has created an increasing demand for biodiversity data infrastructures focused on traits and interactions.
To facilitate data sharing, specialized databases have been developed—one of the largest being the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). GBIF currently hosts more than 2 billion occurrence records across all organisms, and this number continues to grow [10,11,12,13].
One of the most species-rich insect orders is Diptera. Representatives of this order are found on every continent and in nearly all environments. Dipterans are highly active, often abundant, and highly diverse in both size and appearance. The wide range of ecological forms among both adult and larval stages has allowed Diptera to occupy an equally wide array of ecological niches [14,15,16,17,18].
The family Phoridae comprises small flies that resemble Drosophilidae but are distinguished by a characteristic humped thorax. Phorid flies are easily recognized by their tendency to run rapidly across surfaces rather than take flight when threatened. Globally, approximately 4000 species belonging to 230 genera are known [19]. The most well-known species with a cosmopolitan distribution is Megaselia scalaris (Loew, 1866).
Phoridae can be readily distinguished from other dipteran families by their reduced wing venation and curved scutellum. However, their small size and complex taxonomy have hindered broader ecological study in natural habitats. Despite this, due to their high abundance, phorid flies show potential as indicators in ecological monitoring systems [20,21].
The family Phoridae includes several distinct morphological and ecological groups. It is considered one of the most ecologically diverse fly families in terms of larval lifestyles, comprising predatory, parasitic, parasitoid, herbivorous, saprophagous, and mycophagous species [22,23,24].
The aim of our study is to compile and analyze a database based on the results of field studies conducted between 2019 and 2024. The specific objectives of the study included: (1) determining the number of Phoridae species in the fauna of the Republic of Mordovia; (2) assessing the species richness of Phoridae within two large Protected Areas—the Mordovia State Nature Reserve (MSNR) and the National Park “Smolny” (NPS); (3) analyzing the seasonal dynamics of both species’ diversity and individual abundance.
2. Data Description
2.1. Dataset Description
Each observation recorded in our dataset contains essential information, including geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude), date of observation, habitat type, locality, sampling method, name of the observer, and name of the identifier. Coordinates were determined either in the field using a GPS device or post hoc using Google Maps (Table 1).
2.2. Biodiversity of Scuttle Flies
The dataset contains information on 271 species of Phoridae inhabiting the territory of the Republic of Mordovia (Table 2). A total of 15,701 identified specimens were recorded in the region. The highest number of species was found in the Mordovia State Nature Reserve (226 species, 83.4%). A lower number of species was recorded in the fauna of the National Park “Smolny” (177 species, 65.3%), with a comparable level of species diversity observed in other areas of the region. An analysis of the main biodiversity indices shows that the alignment of the Phoridae community in MSNR and NPS is approximately similar, despite the larger number of samples obtained in MSNR. No dominance of one or more species has been revealed. The species diversity of both Protected Areas is very high.
In the identification guide for the European part of Russia [26], it is stated that Phoridae in this region are poorly studied, and the publication included species that potentially might inhabit the area. Another study [27] also emphasizes that the Phoridae fauna in Russia remains largely unexplored, but suggests the possibility of discovering up to 300 species. A comprehensive publication summarizing research in the Russian Far East reports 155 species [28]. We have listed 151 new recorded species from Russia in this list (Table 2).
According to the dataset, the total abundance of the 10 most numerous species amounted to 5436 specimens, representing 34.6% of all recorded individuals (Figure 1). These species include Megaselia pusilla, Triphleba opaca, Megaselia angusta agg., Diplonevra funebris, Megaselia brevicostalis, Megaselia plurispinulosa, Megaselia minuta, Megaselia lutea, Megaselia lactipennis, and Megaselia flavicans.
They are divided into two trophic guilds. On the one hand there are the mycophagous species. Megaselia flavicans and Megaselia lutea are reportet to have been reared from a wide variety of different mushrooms. The other two mycophagous species are Megaselia minuta and M. plurispinulosa. The latter hatched out of fungi of the family Pleurotaceae. On the other hand, there are the saprophagous species. Megaselia pusilla and the species complex of M. angusta belong here as well as the polysaprophagous Megaselia brevicostalis, which has been reared from dead snails, and Triphleba opaca. The latter is also reported to be optionally necrophagous. Diplonevra funebris is classified as a polyphagous species. The larvae feed on dead organic material of animal and plant origin. It was bred several times from dead wasp nests. The adults are regularly observed as flower visitors. Nothing is known about the autecology of Megaselia lactipennis. All information on ecology from [19,20,29].
Among all recorded Phoridae species, a significant proportion (139 species, 51.3%) was represented by no more than 10 specimens (Figure 2). Specifically, 38 species were recorded from a single specimen, 23 species were represented by two specimens, and 14 species by three specimens.
Seasonal dynamics of Phoridae were studied at two plots, each equipped with a single Malaise trap. The seasonal patterns of activity at these plots showed different characteristics (Figure 3 and Figure 4).
In the Mordovia State Nature Reserve, a high total abundance of Phoridae was already observed in April, increasing until June, followed by a gradual decrease in the fly population. Both the seasonal abundance and species richness exhibited a similar trend. In April, with 57 species recorded, the fly population numbered 1015 specimens. This significant increase in abundance was primarily attributed to Triphleba opaca. This species is known for exhibiting such dynamics with a substantial spring peak in abundance [30].
In the National Park “Smolny”, a gradual increase in the fly population was observed from May to August (with a slight decrease in July). The species richness in this plot steadily increased until August. Unfortunately, the Malaise trap in this area became inoperative. The rise in numbers in August was associated with an increase in the abundance of species such as Megaselia leucozona Schmitz, 1930, Megaselia perdistans (Schmitz, 1924), Megaselia verralli (Wood, 1910), Pseudacteon brevicauda Schmitz, 1925, Peromitra incrassata (Meigen, 1830), and Diplonevra freyi (Schmitz, 1927). In Poland, a peak in abundance for some of these Phoridae species was also observed in August [31].
3. Methods
3.1. Study Area
The research was conducted in the Republic of Mordovia, which is located on the territory of the Volga Uplands (eastern part of the region) and the Oka-Don Lowland (western part of the region). Therefore, the eastern part of the region is hillier, featuring forest ecosystems of pine and mixed forests. In various areas, these forest ecosystems have been destroyed by human activity, and secondary broadleaf forests have subsequently formed. This part of the republic also contains a significant number of remnants of steppe ecosystems, which are formed in areas unsuitable for agriculture, such as slopes of ravines and limestone outcrops.
The National Park “Smolny” is located in this part of the republic, within the basin of the Alatyr River, a tributary of the Sura River. Additionally, this area is characterized by many agricultural systems. The western part of the republic is more lowland, with fewer hills. However, it is more forested, with various types of forest ecosystems, and it is less influenced by human activity. The Mordovia State Nature Reserve is situated in this part of the republic (Figure 5).
3.2. Study Material
The dataset was based on Phoridae collections gathered between 2019 and 2024. Six sampling methods were used for specimen collection: hand-held sweep nets, pitfall traps, beer traps, pan traps, Malaise traps, and window traps. All of these sampling methods are well-documented in the literature [32]. For the analysis of seasonal activity, insect sampling was conducted throughout the active season using Malaise traps at two localities: one in Mordovia State Nature Reserve and one in National Park “Smolny”. In the first case, the site was a large clearing surrounded by floodplain broadleaf forest and mixed forest on three sides, with a lake on the fourth side. In National Park “Smolny”, the Malaise trap was placed on a dry clearing, surrounded by pine forest on three sides, with the fourth side open and adjacent to a wet floodplain meadow.
After collection, Phoridae specimens were preserved in a 70% ethanol solution for subsequent identification. Identification was carried out under a microscope Motic SMZ 171 with 20× eye pieces (Motic Instruments, Germany), which allows for a magnification up to 100× using specimens preserved in ethanol. In most cases, the analysis was based on male specimens, as the majority of females of Megaselia spp. and Phora spp. cannot be reliably identified to species level. Species determination was performed using identification keys [33,34,35,36,37,38]. The materials of this study are stored in the private Diptera collection of B.G. In order to analyze the species diversity, abundance and dominance of species, the following commonly used indexes were used (Shannon Index, Simpson Index, Margalef Index, Pielou Index, Berger-Parker Index).
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, B.G.; methodology, B.G. and A.B.R.; software, M.N.E.; validation, A.B.R.; formal analysis, B.G. and A.B.R.; investigation, A.B.R. and M.N.E.; resources, E.A.L. and M.N.E.; data curation, B.G., A.B.R. and M.N.E.; writing—original draft preparation, B.G. and A.B.R.; writing—review and editing, B.G. and A.B.R.; visualization, A.B.R.; supervision, B.G.; project administration, A.B.R.; funding acquisition, A.B.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by Russian Science Foundation, grant number 22-14-00026-П.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments
We thank E. Boggild (Hobro, Denmark) for checking a lot of the species for being determinated correctly.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Van Klink, R.; Sheard, J.K.; Høye, T.T.; Roslin, T.; Do Nascimento, L.A.; Bauer, S. Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2024, 379, 20230101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aleinikov, A.A.; Aleksutin, V.E.; Vozmitel, F.K.; Gunya, A.N. Long-term dynamics of forests with Pinus sibirica in the upper reaches of the River Kolva (Northern Pre-Urals, Russia) from 1938 to 2023. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2024, 9, 72–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopeztegui-Castillo, A. Long-term variations in nutritional condition of Panulirus argus (Decapoda: Palinuridae) in Cuba: Analytical and morphological approaches. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2023, 8, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korotyaev, B.A.; Markova, T.O.; Maslov, M.V. Species of the weevil genus Dorytomus Germar (Coleopera: Curculionidae) associated with poplars in the Ussuriysky Nature Reserve and adjacent area. Far East. Entomol. 2024, 505, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saroj, S.; Mandi, A.; Basak, N.; Mandal, P. The Buxa Tiger Reserve as a ‘hot spot’ of ant diversity in West Bengal state (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Far East. Entomol. 2024, 503, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drago, M.C.; Vrcibradic, D. Will future extinctions occur at the same places where the past ones did? A review involving mammals and the IUCN Red List. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2023, 8, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saunders, M.E.; Lees, A.C.; Grames, E.M. Understanding and counteracting the denial of insect biodiversity loss. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2025, 68, 101338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Veen, G.F.; Vermaat, A.T.; Sitters, J.; Bakker, E.S. Vertebrate grazing can mitigate impacts of nutrient addition on plant diversity and insect abundance in a semi-natural grassland. Oikos 2024, 2024, e10422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trujillo-Arias, N.; Serrano-Cardozo, V.H.; Ramírez-Pinilla, M.P. Role of a Campesine Reserve Zone in the Magdalena Val-ley (Colombia) in the conservation of endangered tropical rainforests. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2023, 8, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svenningsen, C.S.; Schigel, D. Sharing insect data through GBIF: Novel monitoring methods, opportunities and standards. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 2024, 379, 20230104. Available online: http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2023.0104 (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- Alfeus, M.; Irish, J.; Birkhofer, K. Recognition and completeness metrics from iNaturalist and GBIF can inform future citizen science and research projects: A case study on arthropods in Namibia. Biodivers Conserv. 2025, 34, 467–480. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-024-02981-z (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- Štípková, Z.; Tsiftsis, S.; Kindlmann, P. Is the GBIF appropriate for use as input in models of predicting species distributions? Study from the Czech Republic. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2024, 9, 84–95. Available online: https://dx.doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2024.008 (accessed on 30 May 2025). [CrossRef]
- Vasenkova, N.V.; Kuznetsova, N.A. A multiscale approach to evaluate the structure of diversity of Collembola in boreo-nemoral forests of the Russian Plain. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2022, 7 (Suppl. 1), 38–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Velden, J.A. Hoverflies (Diptera, Syrphidae) in a rural garden and their potential for citizen science. Contrib. Entomol. 2024, 74, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chursina, M.A.; Ruchin, A.B. A checklist of Syrphidae (Diptera) from Mordovia, Russia. Halteres 2018, 9, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blakeman, E.; Wilson, A.B.; Romer, S.; Olin, E.; Scott, C.; Popescu, V.; Brodie, B. Passively crowdsourcing images online for measuring broad-scale fly (Diptera) floral interactions and biodiversity. J. Pollinat. Ecol. 2023, 35, 180–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocha, L.C.; Faria, A.P.J.; Alvarado, S.T.; da Silva Carvalho-Filho, F.; Esposito, M.C.; Juen, L.; Sousa, J.R.P. Cerrado physiognomies in a protected area determine the distribution of necrophagous Diptera. J. Insect Conserv. 2024, 28, 749–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yatsuk, A.A.; Matyukhin, A.V.; Anisimova, V.I.; Markovets, M.Y.; Nartshuk, E.P. A new Ornithophila (Diptera: Hippoboscidae) species from Baikal State Nature Reserve (Russia). Nat. Conserv. Res. 2024, 9, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Disney, R.H.L. Scuttle Flies: The Phoridae; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1994; p. 467. [Google Scholar]
- Durska, E. Effects of disturbances on scuttle flies (Diptera: Phoridae) in Pine Forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013, 22, 1991–2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grundmann, B.; Kappert, J. The Phoridae (Diptera) of NE-Westphalia: A field study over five years. Fragm. Faun. 2023, 66, 15–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bragança, M.A.; Martins, H.C.; Oliveira, R.J.; Della Lucia, T.M. Parasitism of the leaf-cutting ant Atta bisphaerica by phorid flies: Biology and seasonal and intercolonial parasitism rates. Entomol. Exp. Et Appl. 2021, 169, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dogan, F.; Ozdemir, I.O.; Disney, R.H.L.; Karaborklu, S. The first record of the scuttle fly, Megaselia scalaris (Loew)(Diptera: Phoridae), parasitising the citrus longhorn beetle, Anoplophora chinensis Forster (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), from Türkiye. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2024, 34, 776–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shikano, I.; Woolcott, J.; Cloonan, K.; Andreadis, S.; Jenkins, N.E. Biology of Mushroom Phorid Flies, Megaselia halterata (Diptera: Phoridae): Effects of Temperature, Humidity, Crowding, and Compost Stage. Environ. Entomol. 2021, 50, 149–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grundmann, B.; Ruchin, A.; Esin, M.; Lobachev, E. Fauna of Scuttle Flies (Diptera: Phoridae) in Some Regions of European Russia; Joint Directorate of the Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park “Smolny”, Occurrence Dataset. GBIF.org. Available online: https://doi.org/10.15468/xr5s2j (accessed on 12 June 2025).
- Zaitsev, V.F. Phoridae—Scuttle Flies. In Keys to the Insects of the European Part of the USSR; Bey-Bienko, G.Y., Ed.; Schweizerbart and Borntraeger Science Publishers Position: Stuttgart, Germany, 1969; Volume 5, pp. 753–802. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Nartshuk, E.P. Key to families of Diptera (Insecta) of the fauna of Russian and adjacent countries. Proc. Zool. Inst. Vol. 2003, 294, 1–252. [Google Scholar]
- Michailovskaya, M.V. Phoridae—Scuttle flies. In Keys to the Insects of the Russian Far East; Schweizerbart and Borntraeger Science Publishers Position: Stuttgart, Germany, 2004; Volume 3, pp. 9–39. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Schmitz, H. Phoridae (1. Teilband). In Die Fliegen Der Paläarktischen Region; Lindner, E., Ed.; Schweizerbart and Borntraeger Science Publishers Position: Stuttgart, Germany, 1958; Volume 4, pp. 1–512. [Google Scholar]
- Durska, E. The phenology of Triphleba Rondani species (Diptera: Phoridae) in moist pine forests in the Bialowieza Forest. Entomol. Fenn. 2003, 14, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durska, E. The scuttle fly (Diptera: Phoridae) assemblages of pine plantations of the Biala Forest (Poland). Entomol. Fenn. 2009, 20, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golub, V.B.; Tsurikov, M.N.; Prokin, A.A. Insect Collections: Collection, Processing and Storage of Material; KMK Scientific Press Ltd.: Moscow, Russia, 2012; p. 339. [Google Scholar]
- Schmitz, H.; Beyer, E. Phoridae. In Die Fliegen Der Paläarktischen Region; Lindner, E., Ed.; Schweizerbart and Borntraeger Science Publishers Position: Stuttgart, Germany, 1965; Volume 4, pp. 513–608. [Google Scholar]
- Schmitz, H.; Delage, A. Phoridae. In Die Fliegen Der Paläarktischen Region; Lindner, E., Ed.; Schweizerbart and Borntraeger Science Publishers Position: Stuttgart, Germany, 1974; Volume 4, pp. 609–712. [Google Scholar]
- Buck, M.; Disney, R.H.L. Revision of the Megaselia giraudii and M. densior species complexes of Europe, including ecological notes (Diptera, Phoridae). Beiträge Zur Entomol. Contrib. Entomol. 2001, 51, 74–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Disney, R.H.L. Scuttle Flies. Diptera: Phoridae (Except Megaselia). In Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects; Royal Entomological Society of London: London, UK, 1983; Volume 10, pp. 1–81. [Google Scholar]
- Disney, R.H.L. Scuttle Flies. Diptera: Phoridae, Genus Megaselia. In Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects; Royal Entomological Society of London: London, UK, 1989; Volume 10, pp. 1–155. [Google Scholar]
- Disney, R.H.L. A troublesome sibling species complex of scuttle flies (Diptera, Phoridae) revisited. J. Nat. Hist. 1999, 33, 1159–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Total abundance of dominant Phoridae species (OX) over the study period.
Figure 2.
Number of Phoridae species (X-axis) in relation to the number of collected specimens (Y-axis).
Figure 2.
Number of Phoridae species (X-axis) in relation to the number of collected specimens (Y-axis).
Figure 3.
Seasonal total abundance and species richness of Phoridae collected using a Malaise trap (Mordovia State Nature Reserve).
Figure 3.
Seasonal total abundance and species richness of Phoridae collected using a Malaise trap (Mordovia State Nature Reserve).
Figure 4.
Seasonal total abundance and species richness of Phoridae collected using a Malaise trap (National Park “Smolny”).
Figure 4.
Seasonal total abundance and species richness of Phoridae collected using a Malaise trap (National Park “Smolny”).
Figure 5.
A map of the geographical location of the Republic of Mordovia. Red dots indicate the sample collection sites.
Figure 5.
A map of the geographical location of the Republic of Mordovia. Red dots indicate the sample collection sites.
Table 1.
Description of the data in the dataset [25].
Table 1.
Description of the data in the dataset [25].
| Column Label | Column Description |
|---|---|
| occurrenceID | An identifier for the occurrence (as opposed to a particular digital record of the occurrence) |
| basisOfRecord | The specific nature of the data record: HumanObservation |
| eventDate | The date when material from the trap was collected or the range of dates during which the trap collected material |
| scientificNam | The full scientific name including the genus name and the lowest level of taxonomic rank with the authority |
| kingdom | The full scientific name of the kingdom in which the taxon is classified |
| decimalLatitude | The geographic latitude of location in decimal degrees |
| sex | The sex of the biological individual(s) represented in the occurrence |
| country | The name of the country in which the location occurs |
| countryCode | The standard code for the country in which the location occurs. |
| individualCount | The number of individuals represented present at the time of the occurrence |
| year | The integer year in which the event occurred |
| month | The ordinal month in which the event occurred |
| day | The integer day of the month on which the event occurred |
| recordedBy | A person, group, or organization responsible for recording the original occurrence |
| identifiedBy | A list of names of people who assigned the taxon to the subject |
| habitat | A category or description of the habitat in which the Event occurred |
| samplingProtocol | The names of the methods or protocols used during an event |
| locality_original | The specific description of the place. This term may contain information modified from the original to correct perceived errors or standardize the description |
| georeferenceSources | A list of maps, gazetteers, or other resources used to georeference the Location |
| coordinateUncertaintyInMeters | The maximum uncertainty distance in metres |
| geodeticDatum | The ellipsoid, geodetic datum, or spatial reference system (SRS) upon which the geographic coordinates given in decimalLatitude and decimalLongitude is based |
Table 2.
Species diversity of Phoridae in Republic of Mordovia (dataset).
| Species | MSNR | NPS | Other District | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aenigmatias brevifrons (Schmitz, 1955) * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Aenigmatias lubbocki (Verrall, 1877) | 7 | 28 | 13 | 48 |
| Anevrina curvinervis (Becker, 1901) | 116 | 6 | 1 | 123 |
| Anevrina thoracica (Meigen, 1804) | 77 | 3 | 14 | 94 |
| Anevrina unispinosa (Zetterstedt, 1860) | 31 | 13 | 38 | 82 |
| Anevrina urbana (Meigen, 1830 | 15 | 4 | 1 | 20 |
| Beckerina umbrimargo (Becker, 1901) * | 4 | 4 | ||
| Borophaga femorata (Meigen, 1830) | 118 | 10 | 2 | 130 |
| Borophaga subsultans (Linné, 1767) * | 4 | 2 | 1 | 7 |
| Chaetopleurophora bohemanni (Becker, 1901) | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
| Chaetopleurophora erythronota (Strobl, 1892) | 2 | 1 | 5 | 8 |
| Chaetopleurophora pygidialis Schmitz, 1941 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Conicera dauci (Meigen, 1830) | 8 | 8 | ||
| Conicera floricola Schmitz, 1938 | 39 | 33 | 4 | 76 |
| Conicera similis (Haliday, 1833) | 208 | 51 | 19 | 278 |
| Conicera tarsalis Schmitz, 1920 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Conicera tibialis Schmitz, 1925 | 23 | 7 | 1 | 31 |
| Diplonevra abbreviata (von Roser, 1840) | 5 | 1 | 2 | 8 |
| Diplonevra florescens (Turton, 1801) | 3 | 3 | ||
| Diplonevra freyi (Schmitz, 1927) | 7 | 62 | 16 | 85 |
| Diplonevra funebris (Meigen, 1830) | 279 | 238 | 91 | 608 |
| Diplonevra glabra (Schmitz, 1927) * | 11 | 11 | ||
| Diplonevra nitidula (Meigen, 1830) * | 2 | 3 | 5 | |
| Diplonevra oldenbergi (Schmitz, 1920) * | 7 | 6 | 13 | |
| Diplonevra pilosella (Schmitz, 1927) * | 101 | 4 | 16 | 121 |
| Gymnophora arcuata (Meigen, 1830) | 18 | 22 | 40 | |
| Gymnophora healeyae Disney, 1980 * | 38 | 38 | ||
| Gymnophora integralis Schmitz, 1920 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Gymnoptera longicostalis Schmitz, 1933 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Hypocerides nearcticus Borgmeier, 1966 * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia aculeata (Schmitz, 1919) * | 1 | 14 | 7 | 22 |
| Megaselia aequalis (Wood, 1909) | 1 | 4 | 8 | 13 |
| Megaselia affinis (Wood, 1909) * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Megaselia albalucifrons Häggqvist, Ulefors & Ronquist, 2015 * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia albicaudata (Wood, 1910) * | 4 | 1 | 39 | 44 |
| Megaselia albiclava Schmitz, 1926 | 4 | 2 | 6 | |
| Megaselia albocingulata (Strobl, 1906) * | 46 | 54 | 26 | 126 |
| Megaselia altifrons (Wood, 1909) * | 98 | 143 | 7 | 248 |
| Megaselia analis (Lundbeck, 1920) * | 34 | 19 | 4 | 57 |
| Megaselia angularis (Schmitz, 1924) | 2 | 2 | ||
| Megaselia angusta (Wood, 1909) agg. | 202 | 74 | 361 | 637 |
| Megaselia annulipes (Schmitz, 1921) * | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
| Megaselia armata (Wood, 1909) * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Megaselia barbulata (Wood, 1909) | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Megaselia basispinata (Lundbeck, 1920) | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 |
| Megaselia berndseni (Schmitz, 1919) | 92 | 65 | 22 | 179 |
| Megaselia bifida Disney, 1983 * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia bifurcata Disney, 1983 * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia bovista (Gimmerthal, 1848) | 28 | 22 | 1 | 51 |
| Megaselia brevicostalis (Wood, 1910) | 343 | 74 | 175 | 592 |
| Megaselia brevior (Schmitz, 1924) | 134 | 47 | 109 | 290 |
| Megaselia brevissima (Schmitz, 1924) | 77 | 5 | 82 | |
| Megaselia breviterga (Lundbeck, 1920) | 1 | 1 | 10 | 12 |
| Megaselia campestris (Wood, 1908) * | 73 | 11 | 19 | 103 |
| Megaselia ciliata (Zetterstedt, 1848) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia cinerea Schmitz, 1938 * | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Megaselia cinereifrons (Strobl, 1910) * | 6 | 2 | 8 | |
| Megaselia citrinella Buck & Disney, 2001 * | 16 | 12 | 9 | 37 |
| Megaselia clemonsi Disney, 1984 * | 13 | 17 | 27 | 57 |
| Megaselia coccyx Schmitz, 1965 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia collini (Wood, 1909) * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Megaselia communiformis (Schmitz, 1918) * | 6 | 11 | 3 | 20 |
| Megaselia conformis (Wood, 1909) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia consetigera (Schmitz, 1925) * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia crassipes (Wood, 1909) * | 8 | 2 | 10 | |
| Megaselia curvicapilla Schmitz, 1947 * | 28 | 9 | 8 | 45 |
| Megaselia dahli (Becker, 1901) * | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Megaselia deltomera (Schmitz, 1924) * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia densior Schmitz, 1927 * | 38 | 13 | 16 | 67 |
| Megaselia depililobulus Disney & Durska, 2011 * | 3 | 3 | ||
| Megaselia devia Schmitz, 1936 * | 5 | 1 | 6 | |
| Megaselia differens Schmitz, 1948 | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
| Megaselia diversa (Wood, 1909) | 107 | 6 | 19 | 132 |
| Megaselia dubitalis (Wood, 1908) * | 4 | 4 | ||
| Megaselia eccoptomera Schmitz, 1927 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia eisfelderae Schmitzt, 1948 * | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
| Megaselia elongata (Wood, 1914) | 126 | 184 | 25 | 335 |
| Megaselia emarginata (Wood, 1908) | 174 | 129 | 10 | 313 |
| Megaselia erecta (Wood, 1910) * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia excorticata Disney, 2010 * | 6 | 1 | 7 | |
| Megaselia fenestralis (Schmitz, 1919) * | 58 | 58 | ||
| Megaselia feshiensis Disney, 1987 | 5 | 3 | 8 | |
| Megaselia flammula Schmitz, 1928 * | 63 | 19 | 39 | 121 |
| Megaselia flava (Fallén, 1823) | 13 | 4 | 108 | 125 |
| Megaselia flavescens (Wood, 1909) * | 7 | 4 | 2 | 13 |
| Megaselia flavicans Schmitz, 1935 * | 59 | 48 | 279 | 386 |
| Megaselia flavicoxa (Zetterstedt, 1848) * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia frameata Schmitz, 1927 * | 33 | 1 | 4 | 38 |
| Megaselia frontalis (Wood, 1909) * | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Megaselia fumata (Malloch, 1909) * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Megaselia funesta (Schmitz, 1935) * | 22 | 15 | 1 | 38 |
| Megaselia fusca (Wood, 1909) | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Megaselia fuscinervis (Wood, 1908) * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia fuscipalpis (Lundbeck, 1920) * | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Megaselia fuscovariana Schmitz, 1933 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Megaselia giraudii (Egger, 1862) | 28 | 6 | 8 | 42 |
| Megaselia glabrifrons (Wood, 1909) * | 6 | 7 | 1 | 14 |
| Megaselia gregaria (Wood, 1910) * | 26 | 3 | 2 | 31 |
| Megaselia hendersoni Disney, 1979 * | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Megaselia hibernans Schmitz, 1934 * | 30 | 33 | 7 | 70 |
| Megaselia hilaris Schmitz, 1927 * | 8 | 51 | 48 | 107 |
| Megaselia hirsuta (Wood, 1910) * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia hirticaudata (Wood, 1910) * | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Megaselia hirticrus (Schmitz, 1918) | 132 | 6 | 26 | 164 |
| Megaselia hirtiventris (Wood, 1909) | 7 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Megaselia hobroensis Disney & Boggild, 2019 * | 32 | 8 | 40 | |
| Megaselia horsfieldi Disney, 1986 * | 19 | 12 | 31 | |
| Megaselia humeralis (Zetterstedt, 1838) | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Megaselia hyalipennis (Wood, 1912) | 21 | 21 | ||
| Megaselia ignobilis (Schmitz, 1919) * | 5 | 6 | 11 | |
| Megaselia immodensior Disney, 2001 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia incrassata (Schmitz, 1920) * | 2 | 6 | 2 | 10 |
| Megaselia indifferens (Lundbeck, 1920) * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia infraposita (Wood, 1909) * | 3 | 8 | 11 | |
| Megaselia insons (Lundbeck, 1920) * | 26 | 14 | 40 | |
| Megaselia intonsa Schmitz, 1948 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia involuta (Wood, 1910) * | 13 | 28 | 4 | 45 |
| Megaselia jani Disney, 2012 * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia joannae Disney, 1998 * | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Megaselia lactipennis (Lundbeck, 1920) * | 115 | 302 | 2 | 419 |
| Megaselia largifrontalis Schmitz, 1939 * | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Megaselia lata (Wood, 1910) * | 15 | 12 | 25 | 52 |
| Megaselia latifemorata (Becker, 1901) * | 5 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Megaselia latior Schmitz, 1936 * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Megaselia ledburiensis Brues, 1915 * | 23 | 51 | 8 | 82 |
| Megaselia leucozona Schmitz, 1930 | 92 | 106 | 40 | 238 |
| Megaselia limburgensis (Schmitz, 1918) | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Megaselia limpachensis Disney & Prescher, 2015 * | 118 | 17 | 6 | 141 |
| Megaselia lobatafurcae Disney, 2009 * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia longicostalis (Wood, 1912) | 9 | 14 | 133 | 156 |
| Megaselia longifurca Lundbeck, 1921 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| Megaselia longipalpis (Wood, 1910) * | 69 | 7 | 5 | 81 |
| Megaselia longiseta (Wood, 1909) | 3 | 3 | 6 | |
| Megaselia lucifrons (Schmitz, 1918) * | 102 | 87 | 26 | 215 |
| Megaselia lutea (Meigen, 1830) | 88 | 17 | 319 | 424 |
| Megaselia luteipes (Schmitz, 1918) * | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Megaselia major (Wood, 1912) * | 21 | 27 | 1 | 49 |
| Megaselia malhamensis Disney, 1986 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia mallochi (Wood, 1909) * | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Megaselia manicata (Wood, 1910) | 36 | 13 | 22 | 71 |
| Megaselia manualis Schmitz, 1919 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Megaselia marekdurskii Disney, 1998 * | 4 | 1 | 7 | 12 |
| Megaselia maura (Wood, 1910) * | 33 | 7 | 1 | 41 |
| Megaselia meigeni (Becker, 1901) | 14 | 14 | ||
| Megaselia melanostola Schmitz, 1942 * | 6 | 6 | ||
| Megaselia mimodensior Buck, 2001 * | 123 | 20 | 17 | 160 |
| Megaselia minor (Zetterstedt, 1848) * | 4 | 6 | 4 | 14 |
| Megaselia minuta (Aldrich, 1892) * | 12 | 1 | 419 | 432 |
| Megaselia mixta (Schmitz, 1918) * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Megaselia nasoni (Malloch, 1914) | 9 | 5 | 9 | 23 |
| Megaselia nigra (Meigen, 1830) | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Megaselia nigrescens (Wood, 1910) * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Megaselia nigriceps (Loew, 1866) | 22 | 2 | 19 | 43 |
| Megaselia nudiventris (Wood, 1909) | 2 | 2 | ||
| Megaselia obscuripennis (Wood, 1909) * | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Megaselia palmeni (Becker, 1901) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia parnassia Disney, 1986 | 22 | 22 | ||
| Megaselia parva (Wood, 1909) * | 3 | 1 | 4 | 8 |
| Megaselia parvula Schmitz, 1930 | 47 | 12 | 6 | 65 |
| Megaselia pectoralis (Wood, 1910) | 16 | 15 | 31 | |
| Megaselia pectorella Schmitz, 1929 * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia pedatella (Schmitz, 1926) * | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Megaselia perdistans (Schmitz, 1924) | 4 | 91 | 4 | 99 |
| Megaselia picta (Lehmann, 1822) | 10 | 15 | 25 | |
| Megaselia pleuralis (Wood, 1909) | 76 | 17 | 68 | 161 |
| Megaselia plurispinulosa (Zetterstedt, 1860) | 301 | 158 | 63 | 522 |
| Megaselia producta (Schmitz, 1921) | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Megaselia propinqua (Wood, 1909) * | 57 | 11 | 27 | 95 |
| Megaselia pseudogiraudii (Schmitz, 1920) * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Megaselia pulicaria (Fallén, 1823) | 8 | 1 | 10 | 19 |
| Megaselia pumila (Meigen, 1830) | 188 | 4 | 3 | 195 |
| Megaselia pusilla (Meigen, 1830) * | 388 | 309 | 49 | 746 |
| Megaselia pygmaea (Zetterstedt, 1848) | 54 | 54 | 126 | 234 |
| Megaselia quadriseta (Schmitz, 1918) * | 20 | 2 | 11 | 33 |
| Megaselia qurigolensis Disney et al., 2019 * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Megaselia raruvesiculae Disney, 2001 * | 20 | 18 | 2 | 40 |
| Megaselia rubella (Schmitz, 1920) | 3 | 5 | 55 | 63 |
| Megaselia rubescens (Wood, 1912) | 40 | 25 | 2 | 67 |
| Megaselia rufa (Wood, 1908) * | 9 | 1 | 1 | 11 |
| Megaselia ruficornis (Meigen, 1830) | 3 | 8 | 17 | 28 |
| Megaselia russellsmithi Disney, 2015 * | 14 | 12 | 26 | |
| Megaselia scutellaris (Wood, 1909) | 5 | 1 | 6 | |
| Megaselia sepulchralis (Lundbeck, 1920) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia serrata (Wood, 1910) * | 6 | 6 | ||
| Megaselia setulipalpis Schmitz, 1938 * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Megaselia simplex (Wood, 1910) * | 31 | 42 | 1 | 74 |
| Megaselia simulans (Wood, 1912) | 5 | 21 | 26 | |
| Megaselia sordida (Zetterstedt, 1838) | 3 | 3 | ||
| Megaselia specularis Schmitz, 1935 * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Megaselia speiseri Schmitz, 1929 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
| Megaselia spinata (Wood, 1910) * | 1 | 7 | 8 | |
| Megaselia spinicincta (Wood, 1910) | 22 | 1 | 23 | |
| Megaselia spinigera (Wood, 1908) | 4 | 4 | ||
| Megaselia stichata (Lundbeck, 1920) * | 5 | 2 | 7 | |
| Megaselia stigmatica (Schmitz, 1920) | 3 | 3 | ||
| Megaselia striolata Schmitz, 1940 * | 101 | 76 | 35 | 212 |
| Megaselia styloprocta (Schmitz, 1921) | 12 | 17 | 29 | |
| Megaselia subcarpalis (Lundbeck, 1920) | 6 | 6 | ||
| Megaselia subconvexa (Lundbeck, 1920) * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia subfraudulenta Schmitz, 1933 * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia subnitida (Lundbeck, 1920) * | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Megaselia subnudipennis (Schmitz, 1919) * | 45 | 23 | 132 | 200 |
| Megaselia subpalpalis (Lundbeck, 1920) * | 8 | 8 | ||
| Megaselia subpleuralis (Wood, 1909) * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia subtumida (Wood, 1909) | 7 | 3 | 15 | 25 |
| Megaselia sulphuripes (Meigen, 1830) | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Megaselia superciliata (Wood, 1910) * | 7 | 7 | 13 | 27 |
| Megaselia surdifrons (Wood, 1909) * | 4 | 6 | 10 | |
| Megaselia sylvatica (Wood, 1910) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia tama (Schmitz, 1926) * | 32 | 21 | 1 | 54 |
| Megaselia tarsalis (Wood, 1910) * | 24 | 15 | 17 | 56 |
| Megaselia tarsella (Lundbeck, 1921) | 4 | 4 | ||
| Megaselia thomseni Disney & Bøggild, 2021 * | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Megaselia tonyirwini Disney, 1988 * | 5 | 5 | ||
| Megaselia trichorrhoea Schmitz, 1921 | 29 | 29 | ||
| Megaselia triquetra Schmitz, 1927 * | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Megaselia tubularia Disney, 2016 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia uliginosa (Wood, 1909) * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Megaselia unguicularis (Wood, 1909) * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia unicolor (Schmitz, 1919) * | 13 | 8 | 21 | |
| Megaselia variana Schmitz, 1926 | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Megaselia verna Schmitz, 1932 * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia verralli (Wood, 1910) | 20 | 160 | 12 | 192 |
| Megaselia vestita (Wood, 1914) | 28 | 28 | ||
| Megaselia viklundi Disney & Prescher, 2018 * | 8 | 1 | 9 | |
| Megaselia villicauda Schmitz, 1927 * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Megaselia virilis (Schmitz, 1919) * | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Megaselia woodi (Lundbeck, 1922) * | 161 | 1 | 2 | 164 |
| Megaselia xanthozona (Strobl, 1892) * | 112 | 1 | 2 | 115 |
| Menozziola obscuripes (Schmitz, 1927) | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
| Metopina braueri (Strobl, 1880) * | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Metopina galeata Haliday, 1833 * | 10 | 2 | 12 | |
| Metopina oligoneura (Mik, 1867) * | 42 | 27 | 107 | 176 |
| Metopina perpusilla (Six, 1878) * | 5 | 4 | 14 | 23 |
| Metopina pileata Schmitz, 1936 * | 1 | 4 | 8 | 13 |
| Microselia southwoodi Disney, 1988 * | 1 | 7 | 8 | |
| Peromitra agilis (Meigen, 1830) | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Peromitra carinifrons (Zetterstedt, 1848) | 32 | 29 | 68 | 129 |
| Peromitra incrassata (Meigen, 1830) * | 138 | 60 | 53 | 251 |
| Phalacrotophora beuki Disney, 1997 * | 6 | 6 | ||
| Phalacrotophora delageae Disney, 1979 * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Phalacrotophora fasciata (Fallén, 1823) | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 |
| Phalacrotophora flavidus Khameneh & Disney, 2021 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Phora atra (Meigen, 1804) | 4 | 69 | 12 | 85 |
| Phora bullata Schmitz, 1927 | 3 | 4 | 7 | |
| Phora dubia (Zetterstedt, 1848) | 5 | 5 | ||
| Phora edentata Schmitz, 1920 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 11 |
| Phora hamata Schmitz, 1927 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Phora holosericea Schmitz, 1920 | 54 | 16 | 8 | 78 |
| Phora tincta Schmitz, 1920 | 12 | 27 | 39 | |
| Plectanocnema nudipes (Becker, 1901) | 2 | 2 | ||
| Pseudacteon brevicauda Schmitz, 1925 * | 76 | 123 | 4 | 203 |
| Pseudacteon fennicus Schmitz, 1927 * | 12 | 1 | 3 | 16 |
| Pseudacteon formicarum (Verrall, 1877) * | 38 | 32 | 1 | 71 |
| Pseudacteon lundbecki Schmitz, 1924 * | 117 | 63 | 14 | 194 |
| Spiniphora bergenstammi (Mik, 1864) | 4 | 3 | 7 | |
| Spiniphora excisa (Becker, 1901) | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Stichillus coronatus (Becker, 1901) * | 2 | 2 | ||
| Triphleba aequalis (Schmitz, 1919) * | 9 | 9 | ||
| Triphleba disparinervis (Schmitz, 1947) * | 4 | 4 | ||
| Triphleba distinguenda (Strobl, 1892) | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Triphleba dudai (Schmitz, 1918) * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Triphleba excisa (Lundbeck, 1921) * | 1 | 1 | ||
| Triphleba intermedia (Malloch, 1908) * | 15 | 15 | ||
| Triphleba lugubris (Meigen, 1830) * | 14 | 7 | 21 | |
| Triphleba minuta (Fabricius, 1787) | 7 | 7 | ||
| Triphleba nudipalpis (Becker, 1901) | 7 | 30 | 4 | 41 |
| Triphleba opaca (Meigen, 1830) | 642 | 1 | 27 | 670 |
| Triphleba papillata (Wingate, 1906) * | 22 | 2 | 24 | |
| Triphleba trinervis (Becker, 1901) | 17 | 17 | ||
| Xenotriphleba dentistylata Buck, 1997 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Shannon Index | 4.34 | 4.07 | 3.85 | |
| Simpson Index | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.96 | |
| Margalef Index | 25.1 | 21.2 | 21.0 | |
| Pielou Index | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.75 | |
| Berger-Parker Index | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.11 | |
| Totalspecimens | 7678 | 4048 | 3975 | 15,701 |
| Total species | 226 | 177 | 175 | 271 |
The asterisk “*” indicates new recorded species from Russia.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Grundmann, B.; Ruchin, A.B.; Esin, M.N.; Lobachev, E.A. Biodiversity of Scuttle Flies (Diptera: Phoridae) of Interfluves of the Moksha and Sura Rivers (European Russia). Diversity 2025, 17, 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17080502
AMA Style
Grundmann B, Ruchin AB, Esin MN, Lobachev EA. Biodiversity of Scuttle Flies (Diptera: Phoridae) of Interfluves of the Moksha and Sura Rivers (European Russia). Diversity. 2025; 17(8):502. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17080502
Chicago/Turabian StyleGrundmann, Bernd, Alexander B. Ruchin, Mikhail N. Esin, and Evgeniy A. Lobachev. 2025. "Biodiversity of Scuttle Flies (Diptera: Phoridae) of Interfluves of the Moksha and Sura Rivers (European Russia)" Diversity 17, no. 8: 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17080502
APA StyleGrundmann, B., Ruchin, A. B., Esin, M. N., & Lobachev, E. A. (2025). Biodiversity of Scuttle Flies (Diptera: Phoridae) of Interfluves of the Moksha and Sura Rivers (European Russia). Diversity, 17(8), 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17080502
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
