The first account of threatened British Diptera was included
in Shirt (1987). This listed 827 Diptera, 270

as
Endangered, 226 as Vulnerable, 328 as Rare and 3 as Appendix
(extinct). Data sheets were included for 82 species (35 Endangered,
and 47 Vulnerable), of which 4 were Nematocera in families treated
in this volume (
Dasyhelea
lithotelmatica (now
Dasyhelea
saxicola),
Asindulum nigrum,
Neoempheria
lineola and
Sciophila ochracea) and 3 were
Aschiza (
Callomyia elegans,
Nephrocerus
scutellatus and
Cephalops perspicuus). This was
followed by the publication of
A review of the scarce and
threatened flies of Great Britain(Part 1)
(Falk 1991). This presented species accounts of threatened species
from the better-known families of British Diptera, together with a
list of all British flies provisionally assigned to Red Data Book
and Nationally Notable (now termed Lower Risk (Nationally Scarce))
categories.
The present volume deals with those
Nematocera and Aschiza which were listed but not provided with Data
Sheets by Falk (1991). Thus members of the following families are
included: Mycetophilidae sensu lato (now five families:
Bolitophilidae, Ditomyiidae, Diadocidiidae, Keroplatidae,
Mycetophilidae sensu stricto), Trichoceridae, Mycetobiidae
(sometimes included in Anisopodidae), Ptychopteridae, Dixidae,
Culicidae, Thaumaleidae, Ceratopogonidae, Platypezidae, Phoridae,
Lonchopteridae and Pipunculidae; the Atelestidae, included within
the Platypezidae by Falk (1991) but now regarded as a family of
Empidoidea are dealt with by Falk & Crossley (2005). Thus
sixteen currently recognised families, comprising about 1226
British Isles species, are considered here. Two of these families,
Ceratopogonidae (161 species) and Phoridae (329 species) are
insufficiently known for a full assessment to be attempted and Falk
(1991) listed only one and ten species (here increased to 22)
respectively in these families. In the remaining families Falk
listed 296 species or 40% of the presently known British species of
these families. The remaining families of Diptera apart from
Nematocera and Aschiza that were not dealt with by Falk (1991) are
reviewed in three further parts within the JNCC Species Status
Review series.
Most members of the Chaoboridae and
Bibionidae would not merit inclusion and as these families were not
considered by Falk (1991) it has not been practicable to gather
data on those few species which might be worthy of inclusion. The
Anisopodidae is now restricted to the genus
Sylvicola with four species, only one of which might
merit inclusion but it has not been feasible to consider it. The
Opetiidae includes a single species, formerly included in the
Platypezidae, which is generally common and this family is
therefore excluded. The families Sciaridae, Cecidomyiidae,
Psychodidae, Scatopsidae, Simuliidae and Chironomidae were also not
considered by Falk (1991) because of insufficient knowledge of the
British distribution of their species and it has not been
practicable to include any members of these families here. Rotheray
et al. (2001) recommended high status (RDB 1) for
Ectaetia christii Rotheray & Horsfield
(Scatopsidae), because of its association with sap of Aspen
Populus tremula at two sites in Scotland and this
should be considered if future evaluation of this family becomes
practicable.
The state of knowledge of the
families dealt with here is very variable. There are national
Recording Schemes for the five families of fungus gnats
(Bolitophilidae, Ditomyiidae, Diadocidiidae, Keroplatidae and
Mycetophilidae), Dixidae, Culicidae and Lonchopteridae and an
increasing amount of data is becoming available for these families.
The small families Trichoceridae and Ptychopteridae (formerly also
the Mycetobiidae and Anisopodidae) are included in the "Crane Fly
Recording Scheme". There is now a substantial amount of data
relating to the "fungus gnats" (Mycetophilidae sensu lato)
due to increased recording effort in recent years and this has
facilitated the assessment of the status of species. I have also
been accumulating data on Platypezidae for many years and their
distribution is becoming better known. The Pipunculidae have
received less attention than most of these other groups and it was
necessary to devote more time to checking data against collections
and consultation with specialists in order to arrive at more
reliable assessments of their status.