muir: two new species of ascodipteron. 365 



are reduced in size, but furnished with formidable stout chitinous teeth, 

 very similar to those in Phoridae. The tip of the proboscis of Melo- 

 pkagus ovimis is set round with short, stout points. Hippobosca 

 equinus has stout bluntly pointed teeth. In Cyclopodia albertisi 

 the teeth are small. In Nycteribosca amboincnsis there are several 

 rows of small chitinous teeth, radiating from the apex of the dorsal 

 plate of the labium to the apex of the ventral plates, across the con- 

 necting membrane (Plate 3, fig. 26, 27) which can only be seen when 

 the dorsal plate is thrust beyond the ventral plate. The male Asco- 

 dipteron speiserianum has similar, but exceedingly small, teeth. In the 

 female of the same speeies these teeth are developed into fourteen 

 series of "blades" (Plate 1, figs. 3, 4, Plate 2, figs. 12-16). Abnormal 

 as this proboscis is, yet it is only a modification of the streblid type. 

 The hypopharynx is very similar in all the Pupipara and forms a 

 tube along which the saliva flows. 



Conclusions. 



The male of Ascodipteron speiserianum is a normal pupiparous fly, 

 in habits, structure, and development so similar to the Streblidae that 

 it is difficult to separate it from that family. The female has under- 

 gone certain modifications — specializations to meet her endopara- 

 sitic life — which must not be taken into consideration when classi- 

 fying this genus. Her preimaginal metamorphosis is normal, but, 

 when once imbedded, she undergoes a great amount of imaginal 

 growth, which can only be compared to the growth of the abdomen 

 of the female termite and Sareopsylla, accompanied by a great enlarge- 

 ment of many of the glands of the body — ■ i. e., the salivary and 

 nutriment glands, and by a great development of many of the abdomi- 

 nal muscles. The development of this fly has nothing in common 

 with the females of the Strepsiptera. 



The Pupipara I consider as polyphyletic branches of the Muscidae, 

 the great enlargement of the uterus, necessitated by their pupiparous 

 habit, compelling a great change in the^ male genitalia. Bearing this 

 in mind I see no reason why Stomoxys and Glossina should not be 

 placed near one another. 1 Braula I have not studied, but judging 

 from Miiggenburg's description and figures, I consider it has no place 

 among the other families included in the Pupipara, but is near Thau- 

 matoxena, as stated by Carl Borner. 



1 Wasche vises the difference of their genitalia to disprove any near relationship. 



