ART. 10 ]SrORTH AMERICAN" TACHINID FLIES WEBBER 35 



anciUa Walker (Tachina), Insecta Saundersiana, vol. 1, p. 299, 1856. 



Austen (Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 7, vol. 19, p. 337, 1907) believes 

 that T. andlla is correctly referred to FronUna by Coquillett, Townsend, 

 (Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., vol. 20, no. 1, p. 21. 1918) has apparently seen 

 Walker's andlla and eonsiders it a Psendomyothyria. 



ancilla Coquillett {Frontina), Revision of N. A. Tachinidae, p. 106, 1897. 



For Coquillett's species, misidentified as F. anciUa Walker, Townsend 

 (Proc. Eut. Soc. Wash., vol. 20, No. 1, p. 21, 1918), erected a new genus and 

 species, Frontiniella paraivcilla (by misprint pararcilla) which appears to 

 have good standing. 



anonyma Riley {Tachina), 4th Rept. Ent. Mo., p. 129, 1S72. 



For the sake of reference. Doctor Riley provisionally used this name for 

 a fly that he reared from Telea polyphemus. No recognizable description 

 or figure was given. It was also mentioned by Riley that this same species 

 has been reared from a number of different hosts. 



In his later Reports on the Insects of Missouri, 5th, pp. 133-139, 1873; 

 7th, p. 178, 1875 ; 8th, p. 179, 1876 ; also in the First Report of the U. S. 

 Entomological Commission, p. 323, 1878, reference is again made to 

 anonyma with additional new host species. In the United States National 

 Museum there are some of Riley's specimens bred from Caloptenus spretus 

 Thomas and Oedipoda Carolina Linnaeus, and which are perhaps what he 

 considered anonyma. So far as these specimens are concerned I am 

 unable to separate them from material reared from Datana angusii Grote 

 and which in this paper is considered to belong to the frenchii complex. 

 There is no assurance, however, that they are the same as anonyma, and 

 in that the proposed type .specimen can not be located or the species 

 positively identified it is best left unrecognized. 



apicalis v. d. Wulp (Prospherysa) , Biologia, Dipt., vol. 2, p. 122, 1890, Mexico. 

 Assigned to Prospherysa by the describer but referred to Achaetoneura 

 by Brauer and Bergenstamm (Zweif. Kais. Mus. Wien, pt. 5, pp. 334 and 

 401, 1891). Unrecognized. 



armigera Coquillett {Tachina), Insect Life, vol. 1, p. 332, 1889. 



The presence of infra-squamal setulae, the female with ventral abdomi- 

 nal keel armed with spines and with a sharp piecer are characters which 

 exclude it from Achaetoneura. Townsend (Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer., vol. 2, 

 p. 249, 1909) makes armigera Coquillett the type of his new genus Eucela- 

 toria. Curran (Can. Ent., vol. 59, p. 12, 1927) refers the species to 

 Lydella. 



harbatula v. d. Wu-lp {Brachycoma), Biologia, Dipt., vol. 2, p. 98, 1890, Mexico. 

 Assigned to Brachycoma by describer but referred to Achaetoneura by 

 Brauer and Bergenstamm (Zweif. Kais. Mus. Wien, pt. 5, pp. 334 and 401, 

 1891). Unrecognized. 



bigeminata Cubran {Frontina), Amer. Mus. Novit., No. 260, p. 9, 1927. 



The species has not been seen by the writer but from its description it 

 can be excluded from Achaetoneura as defined herein by the following 

 characters: Strongly receding face, weak ocellars, black palpi, narrow 

 parafacials, and different chaetotaxy. Provisionally, the species is 

 referred to Masicera of Coquillett's Revision. 



chrysopygata Bigot {Frontina), Ann. Ent. Soc. France, p. 84, 1888, Mexico.— 

 Brauer, Sitzungsbericht d. k. Akad., vol. 106, p. 28, 1897. 



According to Aldrich (Cat. Dipt., p. 463, 1905) the types are a mixture 

 of two species, of which the specimen corresponding to the description has 

 no locality label. The species is unrecognized. 



