22 G NOTES 



writers, even those of the usually so accurate Wiedemann, are not to be 

 relied on. I had an opportunity to convince myself of it, in Vienna. 

 My examination of Wiedemann's types was confined to Cltri/sops obsobtiix. 

 Wied., as the type of C. hif/ens must be in Copenhagen, that of plangens 

 in Berlin, and C. flaridtts and vittat-Hs cannot be doubtful; C. fuliginosus, 

 which should be in Vienna, I did not find. C. obsoletus is represented 

 in Winthem's collection by a single female, marked as a type. This 

 specimen does not agree with Wiedemann's own description, because he 

 compares the wings of obsoletus to those of C. laetiis from Brazil, which 

 species has lotlt basal cells hyaline, while the typical specimen in question 

 has the first basal cell brown and answers the description of my C. morowis. 

 In Wiedemann's collection there are three specimens; one of them bears 

 a label in Wiedemann's handwriting ,,olsoJelus m." ; it agrees with the 

 above-mentioned specimen in Winthem's collection; so does the second 

 specimen; but the third (evidently the one to which Wiedemann 

 alludes in his description as a variety, received from Pennsylvania) is 

 a different species , I think that which I described as unirittatus Macq. 

 In adjusting the nomenclature so as to bring it into agreement with 

 these facts, we would only involve it into a hopeless confusion; and 

 for this reason, it will be much preferable, I think, in this, as in 

 other similar cases, to take the nomenclature of my Prodrome, however 

 imperfect, as the basis for future work, and to let alone the older de- 

 scriptions. This applies of course, a fortiori, to the descriptions of 

 Macquart and Walker. 



68. Chrysops obsoletus. Wiedemann's description, as I have shown 

 in the preceding note, agrees with my C. obsolttus, but disagrees with 

 the typical specimens in his own collection. Furthermore, one of these 

 types (met.tioned in the description as a variety), belongs to a different 

 species. For the reason stated in that note, I do not change the 

 nomenclature of my Prodrome. 



69. Chrysops quadrivittatus. I did not possess this species, when 

 I published my Prodrome. I found it since among the specimens from 

 Dr. Heyden's collecting in Nebraska, which years ago, I had communi- 

 cated to Dr. Loew. 



70. On the european species of Silvius, see Loew, Wien. Ent. 

 Monatscbr. Ib58, p. 350; see also this genus in the same author's 

 South African Fauna. 



71. Silvius gigantulus. Mr. Loew mistook this species for a 

 Clirysops and thus I overlooked it in preparing my Prodrome and de- 

 scribed it again as Silvius trifolium. Mr. Loew's name has of course, 

 the priority, although it is somewhat unbecoming, since the species 

 would have been gigantic for a Chrysops, but is not for a Silvius. 



72. Tabanus carolinensis Macq. I have seen the types in the Jardin 

 des Plantes. I do not know the species. 



73. TaHnus flavccinctus Bell, is Talianus zonalis; it cannot well 

 come from Mexico. The specimen hal been received from the Museum 

 in Paris, and an error of locality must have occurred. 



