The genus-group names Aethiopomyia and Paleotachina were both made available in 1921. The paper by Malloch (1921) was published on May 1 (Evenhuis 2003) and the paper by Townsend on October 3 (Evenhuis 1994), thus giving date priority to Aethiopomyia.

Smith (1868: 183), in his explanation of a plate of “amber” inclusions, wrote the following caption for the specimen that later became the holotype of Paleotachina smithii: “Fig. 2.—A Dipterous Insect belonging to the European genus Echinomyia. Enlarged one-half”. Based on this caption and the figure itself, Townsend (1921: 134) wrote the following for his new genus and species: “Paleotachina gen. nov. smithii sp. nov. (fossil).—Proposed for Echinomyia sp. Smith (1868), Qu. Jn. Sc. V, 183, f. 2. From the Lower Oligocene of Baltic amber. The description indicates one of the Larvaevorini or allied tribes”.

The “Larvaevorini” of Townsend (1921) later became known as the Tachinini when Larvaevora Meigen, 1800 was suppressed by ICZN (1963). Although the species Paleotachina smithii was not described by Townsend (or by Smith, despite Townsend’s statement to the contrary), the species-group name was made available by bibliographic reference to fig. 2 in Smith (1868) (Article 12.2.1 of ICZN 1999). Townsend (1942: 17) later provided a brief description of the genus, presumably from fig. 2 in Smith (1868), and referred to the genus as “evidently tachinid”.

A considerable amount of artistic liberty was taken in the depiction of NHM specimen #58513 (holotype of Paleotachina smithii) in fig. 2 in Smith (1868), which was also shown as a mirror image of the original specimen; cf. Figs 1, 4.

The holotype of Paleotachina smithii is a large fly in the family Muscidae, with a body length of about 14 mm and a wing length of about 14 mm. It is well preserved, but large parts of it are obscured by masses of small air bubbles (see Figs 2–5). The conformation of the abdominal tip suggests that it is a male, but nothing can be seen of the head and associated features. Because of its size, coloration and habitus, the presence of very long stout setae on abdominal tergites 4 and 5, and a vein M that is weakly curved forward towards vein R₄₊₅ in its apical part (Fig. 6), leaving a wide open cell r₄₊₅, the species can be readily assigned to either Aethiopomyia Malloch or Alluaudinella Giglio-Tos, two genera confined to the Afrotropical Region. It is possible to see several small setulae on the node at the base of vein R₄₊₅, and such setulae are present in Aethiopomyia but not in Alluaudinella. Other characters used to differentiate these genera (proepisternal depression setulose or bare, katatergite with fine setulae or bare) cannot be seen in the holotype.

The scutum, scutellum and at least abdominal tergites 4 and 5 are black; the remainder of the body (the head excepted) is yellow. The femora and tibiae are yellow, and the tarsi black. This coloration is most similar to that of Aethiopomyia gigas (Stein), described from Cameroon and widespread though never common across western, eastern and southern Africa. Paleotachina smithii Townsend, 1921 is accordingly synonymized with Aethiopomyia gigas (Stein, 1906), syn. n.

Townsend (1938: 166) began his description of Electrotachina with: “Genotype, Electrotachina smithii sp. nov. For new genus Muscidae aff. Tachina sp. F. Smith, Quart. Jn. Sc., V, 184, pl. 18, fig. 5 (1868). Fly Lower Oligocene of Baltic amber”. A brief description followed, ending with the statement “probably exoristid or tachinid stock”. There is no indication that Townsend examined the specimen and his description is consistent with the drawing of a fly in fig. 5 in Smith (1868). As with Paleotachina, Townsend (1942: 12) later provided a brief description of the genus, presumably from fig. 5 in Smith (1868), and referred to the genus as “almost certainly exoristid stock”.

As with Paleotachina smithii, certain liberties were taken in the depiction of NHM specimen #58551 (holotype of Electrotachina smithii) in fig. 5 in Smith (1868), and it may also have been shown as a mirror image of the original specimen; cf. Figs 7, 13.

Electrotachina smithii belongs to the family Sarcophagidae, subfamily Miltogramminae. The holotype female has a body length of about 7 mm and is preserved in a small block of copal (approx. 15 × 10 × 7 mm) together with two other adult dipterans: a small female Agromyzidae and a Cecidomyiidae. The specimen is in very good condition except for the lack of its right fore tarsus. Antennae, wings and chaetotaxy are all in excellent condition. The specimen can be confidently assigned to the genus Dolichotachina based on the following combination of external character states: arista short pubescent, thickened on approximately basal 1/5; eye bare; parafacial with an uneven row of setae anteriorly; proepisternum bare; katepisternum with two, widely separated, setae; mid tibia with one anterodorsal seta; wing cell r₄₊₅ open at wing margin.

In addition to the above features, Dolichotachina smithii is characterized by an elongated postpedicel (about 3 times length of pedicel), relatively short vibrissa, and short proboscis (about twice as long as wide).

Dolichotachina is a mainly Afrotropical genus with 12 species previously known from this region (Pape 1996). Material recently collected in Burundi and Namibia has demonstrated that the Afrotropical diversity of Dolichotachina is probably greatly underestimated (Whitmore & Pape, unpublished). The condition of the holotype and the difficulty of identifying Dolichotachina females have not allowed us to verify whether this specimen is conspecific with any of the other described species. Lacking any strong indication to the contrary, we consider Dolichotachina smithii to be a valid, probably extant, species from East Africa.