54 A REVISION OF THE NEARCTIC SCIOMYZIDAE 



tinct from longipes. On the other hand it shows some similarity 

 to the Chaetomacera valida group, probably closely allied. 



c^. Tawny to yellow; two apical tarsal joints dark; all bristles and setulae, 

 including arista, black. Wings yellowish-hyaline, with costal margin slightly 

 darker; cross-v^eins distinctly clouded; stigma yellow. Subopaque; frons 

 opaque, golden yellow, with abbreviated median orbital stripes and anterior 

 margin.' shining; face and cheeks pale yellow with silvery reflections; occiput 

 with reflecting silvery spots. Mesonotum rather shining, non-vittate, sparsely 

 pruinose medially; pleura whitish below, darker above but with no defined 

 stripe. 



Structurally similar to ralida. Head shorter with one frontal; cheeks 

 one-fourth as broad as eye-height; second antennal joint much broader than 

 long; third, three to four times as long as second, twice as long as broad, 

 broadly rounded apically; arista distinctly plumose. Abdomen cylindrical 

 or flattened; genital segment subglobose or slightly conically pointed. Wings 

 long and narrow; hind cross-vein straight perpendicular. Length. — 4.5 to 

 5 mm. 



9 . Similar to male; wings .somewhat broader. 



Typc—d"; Machias, Maine, July 28, 1909, (C. W. Johnson), 

 [B. S. N. H.]. Paratijpes.—2 9 ; Bretton Woods, New Hamp- 

 shire, June 24, 1913, (C. W. Johnson), [B. S. N. H.]. 



CHAETOMACERA new name 



1801. Telanocere Dumeril, Millin Mag. EncycL, (4), iv, 446. 



1900. Tetanoccra Hendel, Verb. K. K. Zool.-Eot. Gesell. Wien, 1, 335. 



A study of the literature regarding this genus has given some 

 surprising and not agreeable results. The old, well established- 

 name, Telanocera, must be restricted to a genus in the Ortalidae, 

 if the rules of the International Commission are to be followed, 

 which rules as applied in this case are well recognized and accept- 

 able. Son^ students may propose that the International Com- 

 mission give a special ruling on this case in order to retain the 

 old name, to which I would not demure, although I do not ap- 

 pi'ove of any exceptions to well recognized and acceptable rules, 

 even in a case where a genus is represented by a well-known, 

 named species. 



Tlie name Tetanocera has Ijeen credited, by all authors, to 

 Dumeril or Latrielle, and its date has been given as one ranging 

 from 1798 to 180G. Dumeril's 1798 work does not seem to have 

 been accessible to students. The continual reference by Latreille 

 lo Duiiii'iil, without giving bibliographical data, has evidentlv 



