IOO 



HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



males ; arista pubescent or bare ; forehead and face 

 slightly prominent ; epistome often projecting ; abdo- 

 men ovoid or oblong and depressed, often much 



Fig. 61. — Anthotnyia plnvialis (mag.). 



thickened at the apex in the males ; alulets rather 

 small, but with the scales unequal in size ; wings 

 with the third and fourth longitudinal veins parallel 



in number and arrangement, and, in a lesser degree, 

 in form also. They are generally larger in proportion 

 to the size of the lobes than in Musca domestica ; the 

 basal portions of the teeth are broader ; the serrated 

 free ends present a more uniform appearance, and the 

 lateral portions of each tooth are more prolonged 

 above the central parts. Notwithstanding the increase 

 of size, they appear to be very delicate in structure, 

 being almost colourless ; they require very careful 

 preparation and much enlargement to make them 

 out very distinctly. When these conditions are 

 obtained, a. very pretty set of organs is displayed. 

 The following formula describes the groups, viz. 

 1,1,2,3,3,2,1, or thirteen in each lobe; the two 

 single teeth occupy the posterior, the other single 

 the anterior position in the mouth. The first of the 

 former is of the blow-fly type, all the others being 

 deeply serrated and quite different in appearance. 



Although quoting the above as being representative 

 of this species, the preparation of a number of objects 

 for verification revealed the fact, that the above 

 number — though most frequently occurring — was 

 not constant, some specimens ranging as high as 



Fig. 62. — Teeth of AntJiomyia pluvialis. 



or slightly convergent at their extremities ; anal vein 



prolonged to'the margin ; legs always black or grey." 



The organs of dentition, although bearing some 



resemblance to those of the house-fly, differ altogether 



four distinct rows in two of the central members of 

 the group. Can there be any connection between 

 this and Rondani's " distinct species " before referred 

 to ? If any reader of these notes who has a thorough 



