28 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 74 



129. PELETERIA ROBUSTA Wiedemann 



Tachina robusta Wiedemann, Auss. Zweifl., vol. 2, 1830, p. 290. 

 Echinomyia roMista Van dee Wiilp, Tijdsch. v. Ent., vol. 26, 1883, p. 19. 

 Peleteria rohusta Brauer and Bergenstamm, Zweifl. Kais. Mus., pt. 5, 1891, 



p. 408 (gen. ref.) — Giglio-Tos, Mem. R. Acad. Sci. Torino, ser. 2, vol. 44, 



1894, p. 9. — CoQuiLLETT, Revis. Tachiu., 1897, p. 140. — Curban, Trans. Roy. 



9oc. Canada, ser. 3, vol. 19, 1925, pp. 225, 245, fig. 

 Peleteria 7-obtista mannorata Townsend, Ins. Ins. Menst., vol. 2, 1914, p. 185. 

 Peleteria texensis Curran, Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, ser. 3, vol. 19, 1925, p. 



246, Fig. 27. 

 Peleteria inca Curran, Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, ser. 3, vol. 19, 1925, p. 247. 



There are many other references in the literature, but the group 

 is so difficult that it is almost impossible to determine the species 

 without examining male genitalia, and this was never done until 

 Ourran's paper ; even he, not having seen the material in the Vienna 

 Museum, had the wrong species as rohusta. There is no great proba- 

 bility that any of the writers after Wiedemann identified the species 

 correctly; it is certain that Coquillett confused several species under 

 this name ; his synonomy and that of Van der Wulp and Giglio-Tos 

 is no doubt largely erroneous. The type being a female, it might 

 seem that a positive identification of the species would be impossible. 

 The material received from Vienna under this name includes the un- 

 doubted female type from Montevido; one male and one female, 

 " Brasilien, Alte Sammlung " ; and one female, " Beske, Brasilien." 

 The last is rohusta of Curran, according to a female specimen from 

 Paraguay which he identified in the National Museum. It has much 

 wider parafacials and red epaulets, but the other Brazilian female 

 agrees with the type of rohusta and is accompanied by a male with 

 the same label and agreeing well. I therefore decide that this male 

 is undoubtedly rohusta and have spread its genitalia for study. I 

 find it agrees with Townsend's and Curran's species as indicated. 

 The epaulet is black in all three specimens, hence the species does not 

 run to rohusta in Curran's key. 



The parafrontals are pollinose, abdominal segments mostly so; 

 second antennal joint red, rather long and slender, third black, 

 convex on dorsal side, not very large (a little larger in male) ; 

 palpi long and slender as in nearly all the species ; fourth abdominal 

 segment mostly black in male, entirely reddish in female. The 

 front at vertex in the type female is 0.43, in male 0.35 of head width. 

 The second antennal joint in male is one and a fourth times, in 

 female one and a half times, the third; the parafacial at narrowest 

 is 0.27 in male, 0.29 in the female, of the greatest clypeal width (be- 

 tween the arms of the ptilinal suture). 



The male genitalia are very difficult to draw in this genus. The 

 specific differences are mostly in the united inner forceps. In 



