E. R. CRESSON, JR. 
45 
sharp Carina; with three to four weak bristly hairs on lower half of profile; 
profile convex, shghtly more prominent than orbits. Cheeks as broad as 
length of third antennal joint. Antennal spine weak; third joint broad api- 
cally; arista with seven to eight hairs. Thoracic bristles and setulae distinct, 
normal. Scutellum flat, trapezoidal. Abdomen ovate; segments consecu- 
tively increasing in length; fifth triangular, acute, convex. Middle femora 
distinctly and densely ciliate, especially apical half; tibial cilia appressed. 
Wings long; second costal section twice as long as third. Length. — 3.2 to 
3.5 mm. 
$ . Similar but frons somewhat faintly vittate; bristles of face and espe- 
cially of abdomen stronger. 
Holotype. — c/'; Sandusky, Cedar Point, Ohio, July 16, 1902, 
[Ohio]. Paratypes. — 1 cf , 9 9 ; topotypical. 
Specimens Examined. — 6 cf 12 9 . 
Massachusetts: Eastham, VI, 27, 1904, (C. W. Johnson), 1 cf, [B. S. 
N. H.]. Nantucket, VII, 20, 1910, (G. M. AUen), 1 cf , 2 9 , [B. S. N. H.]. 
Ohio: Sandusky, Cedar Point, VII, 5, 1902, 2 cf , [Ohio]; VII, 9, 1902, 1 9 , 
[Ohio]; VII, 16, 1902, 2 cf , 9 9, [Ohio and Kans.J. 
Variations. — The specimens with immaculate abdomen surely 
belong here, as there is much variation in the extent of the ab- 
dominal markings in the series examined; these sometimes re- 
duced to only a pair on the third segment, or, as in the Nan- 
tucket specimens, the abdomen is wholly immaculate. It is not 
probable that the absence or presence of spots alone is of specific 
importance. 
I have also a female; Mt. Constitution, Orcas Island, Wash- 
ington, VII, 7, 1905, (J. M. Aldrich), [Aldrich]; which is similar 
to those in the above series with the following exceptions: The 
dark abdominal markings are more developed, attaining the 
apices of the segments, and on the third also attaining the lateral 
margins; the frons and face are somewhat broader and the third 
costal section is longer. The discovery of the male of this form 
will probably reveal some specific differences, but for the present 
I will place this individual here. 
Synonymy. — The above quoted synonymy, I think, is correct, 
but Loew’s name cannot stand and being uncertain as to the 
correct identification of unicolor Loew, I am supplying a new 
species for my series. 
TRANS. AM. ENT. SOC., XLIII. 
