Wing morphometrics of medically and forensically important muscid flies (Diptera: Muscidae)

Many muscid flies (Diptera: Muscidae) are well-known as medical, veterinary, and forensically significant insects, thus correct species identification is critically important before applying for fly control and determining a minimal postmortem interval (PMI_min) in forensic investigations. Limited in taxonomic keys and taxonomists, as well as scanty in advanced molecular laboratories lead to difficulty in identification of muscids. To date, a landmark-based geometric morphometric analysis of wings has proven to be a promising alternative technique for identifying many insect species. Herein, we assessed wing morphometric analysis for identification of six medically and forensically important muscids, namely Musca domestica Linnaeus, Musca pattoni Austen, Musca ventrosa Wiedemann, Hydrotaea chalcogaster (Wiedemann), Hydrotaea spinigera Stein, and Dichaetomyia quadrata (Wiedemann). A total of 302 right wing images were digitized based on 15 homologous landmarks and wing shape variation among genera and species was analyzed using canonical variate analysis, whereas sexual shape dimorphism of M. domestica, M. ventrosa, and D. quadrata was analyzed using discriminant function analysis. The cross-validation revealed a relatively high percentage of correct classification in most species, ranging from 86.4% to 100%, except for M. pattoni, being 67.5%. Misidentifications were mainly due to cross-pairings of the genus Musca; M. domestica VS M. pattoni VS M. ventrosa. The accuracy of classification using cross-validation test demonstrated that wing shape can be used to evaluate muscid flies at the genus- and species-level, and separate sexes of the three species analyzed, with a high reliability. This study sheds light on genus, species, and sex discrimination of six muscid species that have been approached using wing morphometric analysis.

Wing morphometrics as a tool in species identification of forensically important blow flies of Thailand

Background

Correct species identification of blow flies is a crucial step for understanding their biology, which can be used not only for designing fly control programs, but also to determine the minimum time since death. Identification techniques are usually based on morphological and molecular characters. However, the use of classical morphology requires experienced entomologists for correct identification; while molecular techniques rely on a sound laboratory expertise and remain ambiguous for certain taxa. Landmark-based geometric morphometric analysis of insect wings has been extensively applied in species identification. However, few wing morphometric analyses of blow fly species have been published.

Methods

We applied a landmark-based geometric morphometric analysis of wings for species identification of 12 medically and forensically important blow fly species of Thailand. Nineteen landmarks of each right wing of 372 specimens were digitised. Variation in wing size and wing shape was analysed and evaluated for allometric effects. The latter confirmed the influence of size on the shape differences between species and sexes. Wing shape variation among genera and species were analysed using canonical variates analysis followed by a cross-validation test.

Results

Wing size was not suitable for species discrimination, whereas wing shape can be a useful tool to separate taxa on both, genus and species level depending on the analysed taxa. It appeared to be highly reliable, especially for classifying Chrysomya species, but less robust for a species discrimination in the genera Lucilia and Hemipyrellia. Allometry did not affect species separation but had an impact on sexual shape dimorphism.

Conclusions

A landmark-based geometric morphometric analysis of wings is a useful additional method for species discrimination. It is a simple, reliable and inexpensive method, but it can be time-consuming locating the landmarks for a large scale study and requires non-damaged wings for analysis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13071-017-2163-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.