300 BULLETIN 31, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



very broad abdomen differs much from that of the type of that genus. 

 The palpi, moreover, are elongate. 

 Romaleosyrphus villosus, Annalos, 1883, 35t).— Mexico. 



This genus, of which this is the type species, is evidently very closely 

 allied to Crioprora, and probably identical. The only part of the gen- 

 eric diagnosis which I do not understand is, "/acie * * superne valde 



* * callosaJ^ The face in none of the species known to me has a 

 callosity above, without the slight convexity below the antennae is 

 meant. The elongate palpi, the conically produced, concave in pro- 

 file, face, the antennae, the villosity, and the structure of the hind legs 

 throughout, are characteristic of Crioprora. The species seems to be 

 different from any previously described, especially distinctive in its 

 large size (22°"'"). 



Ischyrosyrphus tricolor, Anuales, 1884, 73. — California. 



I identify this as Syrphus velutinus. The genus Ischyrosyrphus is 

 separated from Syrphus solely by the pilosity of the eyes and is wholly 

 untenable. See remarks under Catabomba. 



Syrphus perpallidus, Aunales, 1884, 90. — Nortli America. 



This is the very common Western Eupeodes volucris O. S. 



Mesograpta ? bicincta, Annales, 1884, 112. — Mexico. 

 Mesograpta ? bistriga, Annales, 1884, 110. — Mexico. 

 Mesograpta ? circumdata, Annales, 1884, 107. — Mexico. 

 Mesograpta ? cuprina, Annales, 1884, 114.^Cuba. 

 Mesograpta ? heraldica, Annales, 1884, 109. — Mexico. 

 Mesograpta '! lacrymosa, Annales, 1884, 108. — Mexico, Brazil. 

 Mesograpta ? maculata, Annales, 1884, HI. — Mexico, Cuba, Brazil. 

 Mesograpta ' mu, Annales, 1884, 105. — Mexico. 

 Mesograpta '.' pallipes, Anuales, 1884, 106. — Mexico. 

 Mesograpta ? saphiridiceps, 1884, 105. — Mexico. 

 Mesograpta ? trilobata, Annales, 1884, 109. — Mexico. 



It is to be regretted that Mr. Bigot should have thought fit to 

 describe all these new species, while not sure of their generic location. 

 He must certainly have misunderstood the genus, as its distinctive 

 character, a median dorsal cinereous line, is usually easily apparent, and 

 dissipates all doubt as to the affinities of the insects. That he has not 

 rightly conceived the limits of the genus seems also certain /rom the 

 fact that he has described species from New Caledonia, and it may 

 safely be asserted that the genus is distinctively an American one. 

 Other reasons make this addition of numerous new and imperfectly 

 described or doubtful species unfortunate. Not a few Syrphi of the 

 older authors are probably Mesograpta'^ but wbose distinctive characters 

 cannot be made out till the widely distributed species are recognized 

 from South America. Again there is a great variation among individ- 

 uals, and single or even a few specimens are often insufficient to 

 decide the variational limits. Furthermore, differences, or at least a 



