Kaurimyia gen. nov.: Discovery of Apsilocephalidae (Diptera: Therevoid clade) in New Zealand

A new genus (Kaurimyia thorpei gen. et sp. nov.) of the enigmatic fly family Apsilocephalidae (Asiloidea) is described from New Zealand. Kaurimyia thorpei gen. et sp. nov. is described and figured from male and female specimens, one of which was collected in Kauri forest near Auckland (North Island). While superficially similar to Apsilocephala Krober, this new genus shows closer affinities to Clesthentia White (=Clesthentiella Nagatomi, Saigusa, Nagatomi et Lyneborg syn. nov.) from Tasmania based on genitalic characters such as aedeagus shape and non-articulated surstyli. Apsilocephalidae is presently known from just a few extant species in North America and Tasmania (Australia), although extinct species are recorded from the Holarctic and Oriental regions. This is the first description of the family from New Zealand.

Classical Biological Control for the Protection of Natural Ecosystems.

Of the 70 cases of classical biological control for the protection of nature found in our review, there were fewer projects against insect targets (21) than against invasive plants (49), in part, because many insect biological control projects were carried out against agricultural pests, while nearly all projects against plants targeted invasive plants in natural ecosystems. Of 21 insect projects, 81% (17) provided benefits to protection of biodiversity, while 48% (10) protected products harvested from natural systems, and 5% (1) preserved ecosystem services, with many projects contributing to more than one goal. In contrast, of the 49 projects against invasive plants, 98% (48) provided benefits to protection of biodiversity, while 47% (23) protected products, and 25% (12) preserved ecosystem services, again with many projects contributing to several goals. We classified projects into complete control (pest generally no longer important), partial control (control in some areas but not others), and "in progress," for projects in development for which outcomes do not yet exist. For insects, of the 21 projects discussed, 59% (13) achieved complete control of the target pest, 18% (4) provided partial control, and 41% (9) are still in progress. By comparison, of the 49 invasive plant projects considered, 27% (13) achieved complete control, while 33% (16) provided partial control, and 47% (24) are still in progress. For both categories of pests, some projects' success ratings were scored twice when results varied by region. We found approximately twice as many projects directed against invasive plants than insects and that protection of biodiversity was the most frequent benefit of both insect and plant projects. Ecosystem service protection was provided in the fewest cases by either insect or plant biological control agents, but was more likely to be provided by projects directed against invasive plants, likely because of the strong effects plants exert on landscapes. Rates of complete success appeared to be higher for insect than plant targets (59% vs 27%), perhaps because most often herbivores gradually weaken, rather than outright kill, their hosts, which is not the case for natural enemies directed against pest insects. For both insect and plant biological control, nearly half of all projects reviewed were listed as currently in progress, suggesting that the use of biological control for the protection of wildlands is currently very active.