244 S. W. WILLISTON, M. D. 



STRATIOMYIDiE. 



HyJorus Philippi, Verb, zool.-bot. Gesellsch. xv. 728, 1868. 



I have no specimen of this genus from South America, but one 

 from New South Wales, of an undetermined species, agrees so fully 

 with the description and figure given by Philippi that I have no 

 hesitation in referring it to the same genus. Metoponia is certainly 

 closely allied, indeed, to all appearances, quite the same. Xenomor- 

 pha australis Macq., if the figure is correct, belongs also in the same 

 genus. The genus is closely allied to Chiromyza, yet sufficiently dis- 

 tinct in the furcation of the third vein. Bigot (Ann. Soc Ent. Fr. 

 1879, 185) is wrong in uniting them, and it is probable that his C. 

 vidua, if it is really from Australia, is a member of this genus, which 

 I think should be known as Metoponia. 



1. Chiromyza spp. 



I have, of this genus, two males from Chapada, (Nov.) and four 

 males and two females from Rio de Janeiro (April). Thei'e are cer- 

 tainl}' two, and perhaps three, species among them, but the existing 

 descriptions do not enable me to decide which they are. The two 

 specimens from Chapada difler from the other males in having a 

 smaller head and more slender antennae, which are distinctly con- 

 stricted beyond the basal segment of the third joint. In all the 

 other specimens the third joint tapers from base to tip, which is more 

 acute. In one (a) of the two, however, the head is almost cordate 

 in front view, the eyes are more closely contiguous, and the ocellar 

 tubercle is more prominent ; the mesonotum is more strongly gib- 

 bose in front, the hind tibiae less slender and darker colored, and the 

 second basal cell is not petiolate as in the other (b), though this last 

 l)robably means little. Both measure about 6-7 mm. The legs in 

 both are yellow, a little brownish in specimen a, especially on the 

 tarsi. The males (c) from Rio de Janeiro, of about the same size, 

 agree better among themselves, differing only in the depth of color 

 on tliorax and abdomen ; the legs are yellow, in some the tarsi 

 brownish, the antennae are red, with the tip brownish ; they may be 

 C. ochracea Wied. 



The two females are distinctly diflferent from each other. In the 

 one {d) the color is much darker than in the other (e), with the an- 

 tenme nearly black, the legs brown, the head is smaller, the front a 

 little narrower, the ocellar tubercle much less prominent, the hind 



