( i:^8 ) 



taking jilace from the hiinlmari,nii to a, little lieyoiul vein SM-, or to near M', 

 and the posterior spots also merge together in eaeh row. 



Tlie orange marginal area of the hindwing is as broad as in iiralu, being 

 broader than in protodea, especially anteriorly ; the dots in this area are minnte 

 and sometimes nearly all absent. 



The uiidprxule is, on the whole, a little paler than in the palest protodea, 

 and very slightly darker than in the darkest (t::ota \ the markings in the onter 

 area of both wings are rather more sharply defined than in azotu. 



The penis-sheath bears some minute teeth as in protodea. 



Hub. Between Niembo and Kalembo, west of Lake Tanganyika, fino m., 

 January 19U9 (E. Grauer). 



5>cJ. 



ON CAHNUS HEMAPTEEVS NITZSCH {CFXCHRIBOBIA 

 EGGEMI SCHINER) AND ITS SYSTEMATIC POSITION 

 AMONG THE DIPTERA. 



By J. E. COLLTN, F.E.S. 



rr^HE capture of this species in Ronmania by one of the Hon. N. f. Rothschild's 

 -L corresjiondents, constituting as it does the third recorded capture in nearly 

 a hundred years, is of great interest, and has made it possible to correctly locate 

 the species in onr present systematic arrangement of the Diptera. 



Carnus hemapterus was described by Nitzsch in Germar's Moj/azin der 

 Entomologiey vol. iii. (1818), p. 31)5, in an article entitled Die Fanilien iind 

 Gattungen der Thierinsekten, upon seven specimens (1 cJ, ? ?) found upon young 

 starlings. A few years later (after 1822) excellent figures of both sexes (communi- 

 cated by Nitzsch himself) were published in Germar's continuation of Ahrens's 

 ]'aun(i J/isectonim Ettropae, Fasc. ix. Tab. 24 and 2."). Subsequently Egger in 

 1854 recognised the species from specimens found upon the young of Ftilro 

 timinailus and described and figured it in Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wieii vol. iv. 

 jip. 3-7. pi. 2, tigs. 7-11 ; he placed it among the Piipipara and gave a copy of 

 Nitzsch's description, pointing out several important instances of disagreement 

 between his specimens and that description, so much so that Schiner in 1SG2 ( ^Vieii. 

 Ent. Monatsclir. vi. 435) decided that Egger's specimens were generically distinct 

 from those of Nitzsch, gave them the name of Cenrhridobia cgcjeri, and placed them 

 near the Bovboridue. Schiner apparently made no allowance for the fact that 

 Nitzsch's knowledge of Diptera (with the exception of the Pupipard) was very 

 slight, that the proboscis of Carnus compared with that of any of the Pupipara 

 could easily be described as "geniculate," and tliat the ocelli of Canuj.'i (at least 

 in the sjiecimens I have examined) are small and difficult to distinguish, making 

 it (|uite j)ossiljle for Nitzsch to have overlooked tliem. It certainly is difficult to 

 understand why Nitzsch, in his short diagnosis of the genus on p. 284, described 

 the antenna as one-jointed ; but he did not repeat this when he elaborated his 

 diagnosis on ji. 3ii(i, and one is forced to the conclusion that he made a mistake in 

 so describing it, when the general api)earance of specimens, or even of Egger's 

 figures, is compared with the plates in Germar's Fauna Insectorum Ettropae. In 



