Yhe Cabbage Root Maggot. 575 



I do not know who first suspected the identity oi Jioccosa a.nd Jioralis. I 

 have seen no record earlier than Mr. Meade's. In 1888, Mr. Stein recorded 

 " Ch. Jioccosa 'Ma.ai. [=Jloralis Fall.) common throughout the whole sum- 

 mer." Four years later, however, Mr. Stein critically examined the Fall^n- 

 Zetterstedt Collection at Lund and has published (Ent. Nach., xviii, 326) the 

 following account of a species which he found in the collection under the 

 name A. Jloralis Fall.: '' A floralis (147) Ich habe diese Art mit andem 

 dipterologischen Freunden bisher fiJr identisch mit der iiberall gemeineu 

 Ch, Jioccosa Mcq. Rd. gehalten und glaube auch, dass Schiner bei Beschrei- 

 bung seiner A. Jloralis letztere vor sich gehabt hat; er sagt zwar in der An- 

 merkung, dass er ein Zetterstedt'sches Originalstiick gehabt habe, doch ist 

 dem kein Wert beizulegen, da ja Zettersledt die Arten oft genug verwechselt 

 hat. Die Fallen 'sche Type von M. Jloralis ist, wie mich der Augenschein 

 gelehrt hat, verscheiden von Ch. Jioccosa, wenn sie auch die grosste Ahnlich- 

 keit mit itir hat. vSie unterscheidet sich durch die Beborstung der Hinter- 

 schenkel, die auf der unterseite an der Basis nicht dicht und kurtzborstig 

 sind, sondern mit gleichlangen, zeimlich weitlaufig stehenden Borstenhaaren 

 besetzt sind ; ausserdem ragen die Lamellen auf der Unterseite desHintet- 

 leibs nicht hervor, wie es gewohnlich bei Jioccosa der Fall ist. Die Fleige 

 scheint bei uns selten zu sein, ich habe sie wenigstens zum ersten Mai in 

 diesem Jahre im August in 3 Rxemplaren gefangen. Ubrigens steckt in der 

 Samralung unter dem Namen T^ora/zj auch ein Stiick von vitlipes." Mr. 

 Stein writes nie that he still holds the same opinion. This direct evidence 

 from an examination of specimens by a Dipterologist familiar with the An- 

 thomyiians, seems to me conclusive. Yet Mr. Meade, in commenting on 

 Mr. Stein's paper in 1893, does not mention this important discovery, al- 

 though he accepts other synonymic notes made by Mr. Stein at the time. 

 Mr. Meade's belief in the identity oi Jioccosa and. Jloralis seems to be based en- 

 tirely on a comparison of descriptions. One ought not to entirely ignore the 

 direct evidence of a competent observer like Mr. Stein, so I cannot escape 

 the conclusion that the well-known name, brassicae Bouche, by which the 

 Cabbage Maggot has been described the world over by economic writers, 

 must be accepted, for the present at least; there is a possibility, of course, 

 that later investigations may bring to light new evidence to show that 

 Bouch^'s brassicae is identical with y?ora/M Fall., or perhaps some still 

 earlier name, in which case the rule of priority would decree that the earliest 

 name be used instead of brassicae. 



There is no doubt that several authors have written of the Cabbage Mag- 

 got under the navae Jloralis Fall., as I have indicated in the synonomy. 



In 1862, Schiner said brassicce Bouche was probably a synonym of A. 

 rujiceps Meigen. Could the identity of these two species be proven, 

 Bouch^'s name would, fall and the Cabbage Maggot be known as Phorbia 

 rujiceps Meig. , as Meigen's description appeared seven years before Bouch6 

 wrote. I think the facts do not warrant this conclusion of Schiner. While 

 studying Meigen's descriptions of Anthomyiians, I was struck with the sim. 



