NOTES. 239 



Eclimus, however, differs as follows: 



1) the face and cheeks are much more projecting, the antennae are 

 comparatively longer (compare the head of Ecliiinin as figured 

 by Loew, Stett. Ent. Z. 1844; Tab. II, fig. 9, 10, with the Epi- 

 bates by Burgess in Proc Boston Soc. N. H. 1878; Tab. IX, f. la); 



2) the wings have no perceptible denticulations along the costa; 



3) each abdominal segment is strongly coarctate at the base, the 

 preceding segment having a corresponding swelling along the 

 incisure; this is especially perceptible in Eclimus perspiciUaris 

 and ffracilis; less so in E. liirhi*; 



4) the thorax in the male is not muricate. 



1 had an opportunity of comparing Epibates muricatus with the 

 three species of Eclimus in Mr. v. Roeder's collection (in Hoyui); 

 probably the richest private collection of Diptera in Europe. 



Tlurenewyia Bigot has the shining thorax and the projecting face 

 of Eclimus, and, at the same time, the muricate thoracic surface of 

 Epibates (the latter is not mentioned in the description); it has a 

 longer proboscis than either. These genera may, for the present, remain 

 undisturbed, until a larger number of forms, belonging here, are discovered. 



167. Epibates niger. The well-preserved male specimen in the 

 Brit. Mus. shows the minute spines on the thoracic dorsum distinctly. 

 I mention this to correct my statement in the Western Dipt., p. 274. 



168. The latinized from Thereva, adopted universally, seems pre- 

 ferable to Thereua recommended by Mr. Loew. It is easier to pronounce 

 like Evangel for Euanael, Erander for Euander etc. About the euro- 

 pean species, compare Loew, Dipterol. Beitrage, II, 1847. 



169. Thereva candidata. In Mr. Loew's diagnosis, read clausa 

 for apoia. 



170. There is au earlier Thereva nervosa Loew, 1847 (Loew in lift.). 



171. About the european Scenopinus, compare Dr. Loew's article 

 in the Verb. Zool. Bot. Ver. 1857 ; corrections and additions by the 

 same, in Beschr. Europ. Dipt. Ill, p. 150152. An earlier article by 

 him, about the same genus, in the Stett. Ent. Z. 1845, p. 812315. 



172. About the Cyrtidae there is a monograph by Erichson, in 

 his EntomograpMeen (1840): Die Henopier. 



Compare also Loew's : Pitltogastcr, eine neue Gattung der Acroceriden 

 (Wien. Ent. Mon. I, p. 33; 1857). 



Westwood's: Descr. of some new exotic species of Acroceridae (in 

 the Trans. Ent. Soc. V, p. 9198; 1848). Another paper by the same 

 in the same Transactions for 1876. 



The name Cyrtitae, derived from the genus Cyrtus (XVQTOS, hump- 

 backed), I find was used by Newman, in his Grammar of Ent, 1841. 

 Cyrtidae was adopted by Loew, in the Monogr. Vol. I, instead of 

 Acroceridae (Leach), Henopidae (Erichs), Liflatae (Meig.), Vesiculosae 

 (Macq.). It certainly has more meaning than Acroceridae, derived from 

 a character, the insertion of the antennae on the vertex, which is by 

 no means universal in the family. Henopidae (Hoiops, one-eyed) was 

 adopted by Erichsou, in' spite of the circumstance that the generic 



