DNA barcoding of Indian species of genus Lucilia (Dip., Calliphoridae) with two new country records

Document Type : Paper, English

Authors

1 Department of Zoology and Environmental Sciences, Punjabi University, Patiala, India

2 Department of Zoology, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India

Abstract

Lucilia is a genus of flies causing myiasis and breeding in carrion making them a group of medical, veterinary and forensic importance. From India, the genus is represented by 8 species so far. Herein, we have reported two new records for the country (Lucilia bismarckensis Kurahashi and Lucilia silvarum (Meigen)) and provided an identification key to the known Indian species of the genus Lucilia.  Cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 (COI) sequences for three Indian species were generated and analyzed along with seven publicly available sequences retrieved from the GenBank, using Maximum Likelihood analysis. We found that COI could be used as a reliable marker for DNA based identification of the group as the species in question showed enough interspecific divergence and formed well supported clades.

Graphical Abstract

DNA barcoding of Indian species of genus Lucilia (Dip., Calliphoridae) with two new country records

Keywords

Main Subjects


Article Title [Persian]

دی ان ای بارکدینگ گونه‌های هندی جنس (Dip., Calliphoridae) Lucilia به همراه دو رکورد جدید کشوری

Authors [Persian]

  • میناکشی بهاتری 1
  • تنویر احمد دار 2
1 گروه جانورشناسی و علوم محیطی، دانشگاه پنجاب، پاتیالا، هند
2 گروه جانورشناسی، دانشگاه کشمیر، سرینگر، جامو و کشمیر، هند
Abstract [Persian]

Lucilia جنسی از مگس‌ها است که باعث ایجاد میاز و تولید مثل در لاشه حیوانات می‌شود و همین امر آنها را به گروهی با اهمیت در دامپزشکی و پزشکی قانونی تبدیل کرده است. این جنس تاکنون در هند با ۸ گونه شناخته شده است. در اینجا، دو رکورد جدید شامل گونه های Lucilia bismarckensis Kurahashi و Lucilia silvarum Meigen برای هندوستان گزارش می‌شود و یک کلید شناسایی برای گونه‌های شناخته شده هندی جنس Lucilia ارائه گردیده است. توالی‌های زیر واحد ۱ سیتوکروم اکسیداز (COI) برای سه گونه تعیین گردید و این توالی ها به همراه هفت توالی متناظر این ناحیه ژنی که از بانک ژن اخذ شده بود با استفاده از آنالیز حداکثر احتمال، تجزیه و تحلیل شدند. این بررسی نشان داد که COI می‌تواند به عنوان یک نشانگر قابل اعتماد برای شناسایی مولکولی این گروه استفاده شود، زیرا گونه‌های مورد نظر، واگرایی بین گونه‌ای کافی را نشان دادند و کلادهای قابل اعتمادی تشکیل دادند. 

Keywords [Persian]

  • شناسایی مولکولی
  • حشره‌شناسی قانونی
  • Lucilia bismarckensis
  • Lucilia silvarum

Introduction

The genus Lucilia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, commonly known as green bottles, comprises mainly carrion breeders and species causing human and animal myiasis. The group is of great medical, veterinary and forensic importance as these flies are vectors of certain diseases and cause potential economic loss via sheep-strike in many countries every year (Wells et al., 2007). Moreover, members of this group are responsible for causing obligate primary myiasis and facultative myiasis, thus their biogeographical distribution across the globe needs to be monitored and updated regularly (Mirzakhanlou et al., 2025).  The species of the genus Lucilia were earlier divided into number of genera namely Phaenicia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863, Bufolucilia Townsend, 1919, Phomonesia Villeneuve, 1914 and Roubaudiella Seguy, 1925 (Williams et al., 2016). Phaenicia was erected on the bases of the yellow colour of the basicostal scale and presence of 3 acrostichial bristles (Zumpt, 1965). Similarly, Bufolucilia was erected to include facultatively parasitic species (Aubertin, 1933). Phomonesia and Roubaudiella, monotypic genera, were erected on the same species (Aubertin, 1933). Later, Zumpt (1965) synonymised all other genera under Lucilia.

From the Oriental Region, Senior-White et al. (1940) worked on this group and described nine species of which 6 were reported from India. Later, Lucilia bazini Seguy, 1934 and Lucilia calviceps Bezzi,1927 were added to the list (Bharti & Kurahashi, 2010). Of the 8 known species, L. sericata (Meigen, 1826) , L. cuprina (Wiedemann, 1830) and L. porphyrina (Walker, 1856) are primary facultative parasites; L. illustris (Meigen, 1826) and L. ampullacea Villeneuve, 1922 are secondary facultative parasites; L. papuensis Macquart, 1844 is saprophagous; whereas the behaviour of L. bazini and L. calviceps is unknown so far (Bharti & Kurahashi, 2010; Williams et al., 2016). 

Keeping in view the importance of this group in veterinary and forensic contexts, morphological identification is a prerequisite for proper investigation. Moreover, the identification keys are based on adult representatives, and it is observed that the immature stages of these flies are generally encountered during homicide and myiasis but only handful of publications are available in this regard (ErzinÇlioǧlu, 1987, Liu & Greenberg, 1989, ErzinÇlioǧlu, 1990, Szpila et al., 2024). Therefore, in such cases molecular data is the most common, preferred, and reliable method for DNA-based species identification of blow flies. A plethora of publications are available on the DNA based identification of blow fly species (Harvey et al., 2003, Wallman et al., 2005; Wells et al., 2007; Reibe et al., 2009; Liu et al. 2011; Boehme et al., 2012; DeBry et al., 2012,; Sonet et al., 2013; GilArriortua et al., 2013) but little is known from India (Bharti & Singh, 2017). The aim of this study is to provide an identification key to the known Indian species of the genus Lucilia and to verify whether the barcoding region of the COI gene could be used as a reliable tool for species identification. Moreover, we report two new records i.e. Lucilia bismarckensis Kurahashi and Lucilia silvarum (Meigen) from India.

Materials and methods

Collection data of new records

The adult specimens of Lucilia bismarckensis were collected from pig and fish carcasses using a sweep net in Jaipur, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Assam. Lucilia silvarum was collected from fish baits in Jammu and Kashmir. The collected specimens were killed with ethyl acetate vapours and preserved in absolute alcohol for further analysis. Identification keys were used to identify the specimens (Kurahashi, 1987; Kurahashi & Thapa, 1994). All examined specimens are deposited in the Diptera Laboratory, Department of Zoology and Environmental Sciences, Punjabi University, Patiala, India.

DNA Extraction and PCR Amplification

A total of 10 species of genus Lucilia which occur in India were used for molecular analysis. DNA sequences from three species were successfully extracted and amplified in this study (PP980536, PP980525, OR492603), along with seven pre-existing public sequences retrieved from the GenBank (Table 1). Quigen DNeasy tissue kit (Qiagen, Inc., Valencia, CA) was used as per manufacturer’s protocol to extract DNA from crushed head tissue. Each PCR reaction consisted of 10µl of 2x Master Mix (Promega Corporation, Madison, WI), 1 µl of each primer (10pmol/µl), 1–3 µl of template DNA (10–30 ng), and rest of water to make the total volume of 20 µl. DNA amplifications were carried out in a Master cycler Nexus Thermal Cycler (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) using PCR protocols, as described in Wells & Sperling (2001). Sequencing was conducted by Eurofins Genomics (Bangalore, India). Chrysomya thanomthini (Kurahashi & Tumrasvin) (#PV203235) and Hemipyrellia ligurriens (Wiedemann) (#OR501396) were used as outgroups for analysis.

DNA sequence analysis

All sequences were aligned using default parameters in Muscle (Edgar, 2021), as implemented in MEGA X (Kumar et al., 2016). Non-overlapping regions of sequences were trimmed, and the rest of the aligned sequences were used for pairwise distances analyses. For calculating pairwise nucleotide diversity, the pairwise deletion option with default parameters in MEGA X was used. Analysis was performed on 788bp of aligned sequences using Maximum Likelihood (ML) analysis in MEGA X (Kumar et al. 2016). Maximum Likelihood analysis was performed for 1000 bootstrap replications using the unweighted heuristic search option, ML optimality criterion and General Time-Reversible model with variable sites (GTR+I). The best fit model for ML analysis was selected using Akaike information criteria (AIC) in MEGA X software.

Results and Discussion

Taxonomic analysis

 Herein, we report Lucilia bismarckensis Kurahashi, 1987 and Lucilia silvarum (Meigen, 1826) as new records from India.  L. bismarckensis is a saprophagous species and thus can be used for determining a PMI in homicide cases. Lucilia silvarum (toad fly) has an interesting history with respect to its niche preference. Earlier records associated this fly with amphibian myiasis (Zumpt, 1965; Bolek & Janovy, 2004) but later it was established that this fly is saprophagous and colonizes carcasses of birds and mammals including humans (Davies, 1999; Fremdt et al., 2012; Bagsby et al., 2024). This mistake was the result of misidentification as researchers misidentified Lucilia bufonivora Moniez, 1876 as Lucilia silvarum (Bagsby et al., 2024). During present investigation L. silvarum was collected from fish bait, substantiating the recent findings to consider this species of forensic relevance, however more studies are needed to confirm the same.

Key to the Indian species of Lucilia

  1. Post-sutural acrostichial: 3 ………………………………………………………… (2)

      -    Post-sutural acrostichial: 2 …………………………………………………………. (4)

  1. Basicostal scale yellow, palpus bright orange, upper and lower calypter white in color         ………………………………………………………………………………………. (3)

      -   Basicostal scale brown or black; palpus brown or black, upper calypter pale and lower calypter brown in color …………………………………… Lucilia silvarum (Meigen)

  1. Posterior slope of humeral callus with 0-4 hairs; abdomen arched in profile; sternites with tuft of long hairs; hypopygium prominent; parafrontalia bare or almost bare except for frontals and fronto-orbitals in female …………………  Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann)

     -   Posterior slope of humeral callus with 6-8 hairs; abdomen not arched in profile, sternites without tuft of long hairs, hypopygium inconspicuous; parafrontalia in female with short decumbent bristles among frontals and parafrontals ………………………………………………………………... Lucilia sericata (Meigen)

  1. Upper and lower calypter white ………………………………………………………. (5)

    - Upper calypter white and lower calypter infuscated or both alar squama and thoracic squama infuscated …………………………………………………………………….. (6)

  1. Eyes separated by little less than 3rd antennal segment, frons obliterated for short space; abdominal segments III and IV without dark marginal band …… Lucilia illustris (Meigen)

   -    Eyes holoptic, separated at point of closet association by a distance slightly more than the width of ocellar triangle; abdominal segments III and IV with marginal bands, at most with a trace of very narrow median dark stripe ……………   Lucilia bismarckensis Kurahashi

  1. First pair of post-sutural acrostichial setae situated anterior to second pair of dorsocentral setae in dorsal view ………………………………………………………… …………… 7

-  First pair of post-sutural acrostichial setae situated at level or slightly posterior to second pair of dorsocentral setae in dorsal view ………………………………………………………. 8

  1. Abdomen without distinct black marginal bands, wings faintly and uniformly tinged with brown, which deepens slightly at the base …………………… Lucilia porphyrina (Walker)

- First abdominal segment greenish black, rest with black marginal bands, wings hyaline ……………………………………………………………… Lucilia ampullacea Villeneuve

  1. Upper calypter creamy with a tuft of yellowish white hairs at the inner lower margin, lower calypter pale, brownish on disc, occiput with more than two irregular rows of black post ocular setae …………………………………………………………… Lucilia bazini Seguy

- Upper calypter fuscous brown, usually with a tuft of blackish-brown hairs at inner lower margin ……………………………………………………………….…………………….. 9

  1. Body metallic blue, narrowest part of male frons broader than the distance between two posterior ocelli, parafacialia broader than the width of third antennal segment in female ………………………………………………………………… Lucilia papuensis Macquart

  -  Body metallic green, narrowest part of male frons distinctly narrower than the distance between both posterior ocelli; parafacialia as broad as, or narrower than the width of third antennal segment in female ………………………………………….. Lucilia calviceps Bezzi

 

Fig. 1. Lucilia bismarckensis (a) profile female (b) head female (c) profile male (d) head male (Scale bar: A=2mm; B=1mm; C=2mm; D=1mm)

 

Lucilia bismarckensis Kurahashi, 1987 (Fig. 1)

Material Examined: 8♀, 9♂, India, West Bengal, Buxa Tiger Reserve, 26.9167o N, 89.9167o′ E, 867m, 25.x.2023; India, West Bengal, Hasimara, 26.7309° N, 89.3506° E, 109m, 27.x.2023; India, Assam, Bongaigaon,26.5030° N, 90.

Diagnostic characteristics: Upper calypter white with a tuft of yellowish white hairs, humeral hairs black, anterior pair of acrostichial at level with second pair of post-sutural dorsocentrals, eyes in male closely approximated but separated by the width of ocellar triangle, parafacialia usually grey dusted, body 6.0-9.0 mm in length.

Lucilia silvarum (Meigen, 1826) (Fig. 2)

Material examined:  4♀, 6 ♂, India, Jammu and Kashmir, Hokersar, 34.090° N 74.710° E, 1584m, 15.x.2022, India, Jammu and Kashmir, Hafthrada, 34.450° N 74.060° E, 1950m, 27.viii.2022, India, Jammu and Kashmir, Uri, 34.080° N 75.030° E, 1721m, 10.vi.2023.

Diagnostic Characteristics: A dark base of wing, subcostal sclerite without setulae, tergite 1+2 black in color, large bristles on the hind border of tergite 4 in females and tergite 3 in males, eyes separated by the width of third antennal segment in male, 3 postsutural acrostichal bristles.

Evolutionary Divergence: The main purpose of this study was to test the reliability of the COI gene for the molecular identification of Indian species of the genus Lucilia. The pairwise distances of 12 species were calculated (Table2) and it was observed that the interspecific divergence ranged from 0.61% (for L. sericata and L. cuprina) to 10.18% including the outgroup (for Chrysomya thanomthini and L. silvarum). The low intraspecific divergence between L. cuprina and L. sericata (0.6%) in the present study could be attributed to the high external morphological similarity of the two species. Moreover, introgression and presence of natural hybrids of the two species have been reported by other researchers (Wallman et al., 2005; DeBry et al., 2010; Williams & Villet, 2013). 

It is known that interspecific divergence is low in insect orders and is rarely beyond 2% in all animal groups (Hebert et al., 2003). A wide barcoding gap observed in this study suggests that except L. sericata and L. cuprina, all species tested have enough COI sequence divergence for reliable species identification.

Molecular analysis: We analysed our data using ML to obtain a robust tree (Fig. 3). All the species included in this study (except L. sericata and L. cuprina) were monophyletic and can be reliably identified using COI barcodes. The ML tree (Fig. 3) clearly divided the Indian species of genus Lucilia into two major groups. The first group comprises of species of old-world lineages and are saprophagous (L. papuensis, L. bismarckensis, L. ampullacea, L. illustris, L. calviceps, L. bazini, L. porphyrina). Primary and secondary facultative parasites (L. cuprina, L. sericata and L. silvarum) constitute the second group of the ML tree.

Morphologically: Indian species of genus Lucilia could be broadly categorized into two groups based on the number of acrostichial bristles. The species with three acrostichial bristles are L. silvarum, L. cuprina and L. sericata which also formed a separate clade of facultative parasites in molecular analysis. The second group with two acrostichial bristles comprises of L. bazini, L. papuensis, L. bismarckensis, L. ampullacea, L. illustris, L. calviceps, and L. porphyrina constitute the old-world lineage of the ML tree. A similar trend was observed in the phylogenetic analysis carried out by Williams et al. (2016) wherein different degrees of parasitism were phylogenetically clustered. However, the researchers concluded that none of these parasitic behaviours are limited to any geographical area and is an outcome of phylogenetic diversification within Lucilia (Williams et al., 2016).

In conclusion, it was observed that the COI gene showed enough genetic diversity between the Indian species of genus Lucilia and thus could be used as a reliable marker for species delimitation. However, as L. sericata and L. cuprina showed a low intraspecific divergence, morphological characters such as male genitalia should be considered in such cases. A great deal of work is still required to build a reliable reference database for DNA-based identification of forensically important blowflies from different regions of India.

Table.1. NCBI GenBank accession numbers of species of the genus Lucilia used in our molecular analysis along with their distribution in India and across the globe, and "country of origin" of the sequence

No.

Species 

Distribution in India

Global Distribution

Accession Numbers

"Country of origin" of the sequence

1.

Lucilia sericata

Widely distributed

Cosmopolitan

KX893339

India

2.

Lucilia cuprina

Widely distributed

Afrotropical, Australasian, Oriental, Palaearctic, Nearctic

KX053869

French Polynesia

3.

Lucilia porphyrina

Widely distributed

Australasian, Oriental, Palaearctic

KX893338

India

4.

Lucilia bazini

West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand

Oriental, Palaearctic

PP980536

India

5.

Lucilia illustris

West Bengal

Oriental, Palaearctic, Nearctic

PP980525

India

6.

Lucilia bismarckensis

Rajasthan, Assam, West Bengal

Australasian, Oriental

JN014874

Malaysia

7.

Lucilia papuensis

Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Meghalaya, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal

Australasian, Oriental

KX893335

India

8.

Lucilia calviceps

Himachal Pradesh

Australasian, Oriental

JN014875

Malaysia

9.

Lucilia silvarum

Jammu and Kashmir

Oriental, Palaearctic, Nearctic

OQ611440

Germany

10.

Lucilia ampullacea 

Widely distributed

Palaearctic and Oriental

OR492603

India

Fig. 2. Lucilia silvarum (A) habitus (B) head, frontal view (C) thorax showing two pre-sutural and three post-sutural dorsocentral setae (D) fifth tergite with long marginal bristles (Scale bar: A=0.5mm; B=0.2mm; C=0.2mm; D=0.1m

 

Table 2. Percentage intra- and interspecific pairwise sequence divergences of blowfly species occur in India.

 

C. thanomthini

L. porphyrina

L. bazini

L. calviceps

L. illustris

L. bismarckensis

L. papuensis

L. ampullacea

H. ligurriens

L. silvarum

L. cuprina

L. sericata

Chrysomya thanomthini

 

90.8

90.8

90.8

90.56

91.19

90.35

90.4

91.51

89.82

90.58

91.75

Lucilia porphyrina

90.8

 

94.06

93.28

93.79

92.89

92.93

92.89

93.47

93.62

94.38

94.32

Lucilia bazini

90.8

94.06

 

94.78

94.68

94.01

94.16

94.16

93.18

93.01

93.01

93.65

Lucilia calviceps

90.8

93.28

94.78

 

96.81

96.82

96.33

97.15

92.41

93.16

93.31

94.01

Lucilia illustris

90.56

93.79

94.68

96.81

 

97.47

96.94

96.94

92.69

93.01

93.62

94.55

Lucilia bismarckensis

91.19

92.89

94.01

96.82

97.47

 

98.51

98.7

92.79

93.77

94.68

95.03

Lucilia papuensis

90.35

92.93

94.16

96.33

96.94

98.51

 

98.78

92.53

93.67

94.14

94.57

Lucilia ampullacea

90.4

92.89

94.16

97.15

96.94

98.7

98.78

 

92.48

93.31

93.62

94.29

Hemipyrellia ligurriens

91.51

93.47

93.18

92.41

92.69

92.79

92.53

92.48

 

93.16

94.53

95.11

Lucilia silvarum

89.82

93.62

93.01

93.16

93.01

93.77

93.67

93.31

93.16

 

96.05

96.35

Lucilia cuprina

90.58

94.38

93.01

93.31

93.62

94.68

94.14

93.62

94.53

96.05

 

99.39

Lucilia sericata

91.75

94.32

93.65

94.01

94.55

95.03

94.57

94.29

95.11

96.35

99.39

 

 

Fig. 3. Maximum Likelihood tree showing relationships among species of genus Lucilia. The tree was constructed using GTR+I model. The numbers near the nodes represent bootstrap value of each node in the tree.

Aubertin, D. (1933) Revision of the genus Lucilia R.-D. (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Linnean Society Journal of Zoology, 38: 389–463. http://doi.org.10.1111/j.1096-3642.1933.tb00991
Bagsby, K. E., Byrd, J., Stern, A. & Hans, K. R. (2024)  Initial Blow Fly (Diptera: Calliphoridae) colonization of cats (Felis catus) in Indiana. Journal of Medical Entomology, 61(3): 535-540. http://doi.org.10.1093/jme/tjad170.
Bharti, M. & Kurahashi, H. (2010) Lucilia calviceps Bezzi, new record from India (Diptera: Calliphoridae), with a revised key to Indian species. Halteres, 2: 29-30.
Bharti, M. & Singh, B. (2017) DNA-based identification of forensically important blow flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) from India. Journal of Medical Entomology 54(5):1151-1156. http://doi.org.10.1093/jme/tjx084.
Boehme, P., Amendt, J. & Zehner, R. (2012) The use of COI barcodes for molecular identification of forensically important fly species in Germany. Parasitology Research 110: 2325–2332. http://doi.org.10.1007/s00436-011-2767-8
Bolek, M. G. & Janovy, J. (2004) Observations on myiasis by the Calliphorids, Bufolucilia silvarum and Bufolucilia elongata, in wood frogs, Rana sylvatica, from Southeastern Wisconsin. Journal of Parasitology 90: 1169–1171. DOI: 10.1645/GE-246R
Davies, L. (1999) Seasonal and spatial changes in Blowfly production from small and large carcasses at Durham in lowland Northeast England. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 13: 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2915.1999.00135.x
DeBry, R., Timm, A. E., Dahlem, G. A. & Stamper, T. (2010) mtDNA-based identification of Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) and Lucilia sericata (Meigen) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) in the continental United States. Forensic Science International 202: 102–109.http://doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.04.038
DeBry, R., Timm, A. E., Wong, E. S., Stamper, T., Cookman, C. & Dahlem, G. A. (2012) DNA-Based identification of forensically important Lucilia (Diptera: Calliphoridae) in the continental United States. Journal of Forensic Sciences 58: 73–78. http://doi.org.10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02176.x­
Edgar, R. C. (2021) MUSCLE v5 enables improved estimates of phylogenetic tree confidence by ensemble bootstrapping, bioRxiv 2021.06.20.449169
 ErzinÇlioǧlu, Y. Z. (1987) The larval instars of the African blowfly, Calliphora croceipalpis Jaennicke, with a key to the genera of the third instars of African carrion-breeding Calliphoridae (Diptera), Bulletin of Entomological Research 77: 575–580 https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0007485300012074.  
ErzinÇlioǧlu, Y. Z. (1990) The larvae of two closely-related blowfly species of the genus Chrysomya (Diptera, Calliphoridae), Entomologica Fennica 1: 151–153. https://doi. org/10.33338/ef.83474
Fremdt, H., Szpila, K., Huijbregts, J., Lindström, A., Zehner, R. & Amendt, J. (2012) Lucilia silvarum Meigen, 1826 (Diptera: Calliphoridae)—A new species of interest for forensic entomology in Europe. Forensic Science International 222: 335–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.07.013
GilArriortua, M., Salona Bordas, M. I., Caine, L. M., Pinheiro, F., de Pancorbo, M. M. (2013) Cytochrome b as a useful tool for the identification of blowflies of forensic interest (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Forensic Science International 228:132–136. http://doi.org.10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.02.037
Harvey, M. L., Mansell, M. W., Villet, M. H. & Dadour, I. R. (2003) Molecular identification of some forensically important blowflies of southern Africa and Australia. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 17: 363–369. http://doi.org.10.1111/j.1365-2915.2003.00452.x
Hebert, P. D. N., Cywinska, A., Ball, S. L. & deWaard, J. R. (2003) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of Royal Entomological Society London B 270: 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2218
Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Li, M., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. (2016) MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Molecular Biology and Evolution 35:1547-1549. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy096
Kurahashi, H. (1987) The Blow Flies of New Guinea, Bismarck Archipelago, and Bougainville Island (Diptera, Calliphoridae). The Entomological Society of Japan, 90pp
Kurahashi, H. & Thapa, V. K. (1994) Notes on the Nepalese calliphorid flies (Insecta: Diptera). Studies on the taxonomy, ecology and control of the medically important flies in India and Nepal. Japanese Journal of Sanitary Zoology 45: 179-252.
Liu, D. & Greenberg, B. (1989) Immature stages of some flies of forensic importance, Annals of Entomological Society of America 82: 80–93  https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/82.1.80
Liu, Q. L., Cai, J. F., Chang, Y. F., Gu, Y., Guo, Y. D., Wang, X. H., Weng, J. F., Zhong, M., Wang, X., Yang, L., Wu, K. L, Lan, L. M., Wang, J. F. & Chen, Y. Q. (2011) Identification of forensically important blow fly species (Diptera: Calliphoridae) in China by mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene differentiation. Insect Science 18: 554–564. http://doi.org.10.1111/j.1744-7917.2010.01377.x
Mirzakhanlou, A. A., Shayeghi, M., Vatandoost, H., Izadian, A., Karimi, Z. & Akbarzadeh, K. (2025) Species diversity of saprophagous flies (Diptera) in hospital grounds of Tehran, Iran. Journal of Entomological Society of Iran 45(1): 97-106. https://doi.org/10.61186/jesi.45.1.8
Reibe, S., Schmitz, J. & Madea, B. (2009) Molecular identification of forensically important blowfly species (Diptera: Calliphoridae) from Germany. Parasitology Research 106: 257–261. http://doi.org.10.1007/s00436-009-1657-9
Senior-White, R., Aubertin, D. & Smart, J. (1940) The fauna of British India, Diptera VI family Calliphoridae. Today and Tomorrow’s Printers and Publishers,New Delhi, India288pp
Sonet, G., Jordaens, K., Braet, Y., Bourguignon, L., Dupont, E., Backeljau, T., De Meyer, M. & Desmyter, S. (2013) Utility of GenBank and the Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD) for the identification of forensically important Diptera from Belgium and France. ZooKeys 365: 307–328. http://doi.org.10.3897/zookeys.365.6027
Szpila, K., Williams, K., Soszynska, A., Ekanem, M., Heyns, M., Dinka, M. D. & Villet, M. (2024) Key for the identification of third instar larvae of African blowflies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) of forensic importance in death investigations. Forensic Science International 354 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111889
Wallman, J. F., Leys, R. & Hogendoorn, K. (2005) Molecular systematics of Australian carrion-breeding blowflies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) based on mitochondrial DNA. Invertebrate Systematics 19: 1–15. http://doi.org.10.1071/IS04023
Wells, J. D. & Sperling, F. A. (2001) DNA-based identification of forensically important Chrysomyinae (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Forensic Science International 120(1-2):110-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0379-0738(01)00414-5
Wells, J. D., Wall, R. & Stevens, J. R. (2007) Phylogenetic analysis of forensically important Lucilia flies based on cytochrome oxidase I sequence: a cautionary tale for forensic species determination. International Journal of Legal Medicine 121: 229–233. http://doi.org. 10.1007/s00414-006-0147-1
Williams, K. A., Lamb, J. & Villet, M. H. (2016) Phylogenetic radiation of the greenbottle flies (Diptera,Calliphoridae, Luciliinae). ZooKeys 568: 59–86. http://doi.org.10.3897/zookeys.568.6696
Williams, K. A. & Villet, M. H. (2013) Ancient and modern hybridization between Lucilia sericata and L. cuprina (Diptera: Calliphoridae). European Journal of Entomology 110: 187–196. doi: 10.14411/eje.2013.029
Zumpt, F. K. E. (1965) Myiasis in man and animals in the old world: a textbook for physicians, veterinarians and zoologists. Butterworths, London, 277 pp.
CAPTCHA Image