SOLDIER FLY LARVAE — McFADDEN 



13 



James 

 1. 



2. Chiromyzinae — Altermetoponia 



3. Beridinae — Allognosta, Actina, 



Beris, Exodontha 

 Sarginae — Sargus, Ptedicus, 



Microchrysa, Chloromyia,* 



Merosargus 

 Cyphomyiinae — Cyphomyia, 



Dicyphoma 

 Hermetiinae — Hermetia 



4. 



\ 9- 

 i 10. 



Clitellariinae — Adoxomyia, 

 Dieuryneura, Brachycara,* 

 Euryneura,* Oxycera* 

 Euparyphus, Caloparyphus, 

 Akronia,* Nemotelus 



Stratiomyinae — Stratiomys, 

 Hoplitomyia, * Labostigmina, * 

 Anoplodonta,* Hedriodiscus, 

 Odontomyia, Nothomyia, * 

 Myxosargus 



Pachygastrinae — Neopachygaster, 

 Eupachygaster, Pachygaster, 

 Zabrachia, Berkshiria 



McFadden 



1. Xylomyinae — Xylomya, Solva 



2. Chiromyzinae — as in James 



3. Beridinae — as in James 



4. Sarginae — as in James 



5. Cyphomyiinae — see under 



Clitellariinae 



6. Hermetiinae — see under 



Clitellariinae 



7. Clitellariinae — Dieuryneura 



Cyphomyiini — Cyphomyia, 

 Adoxomyia, Dicyphoma 

 Hermetiini — Hermetia 



8. Stratiomyinae — Stratiomys, 



Hedriodiscus, Odontomyia, 

 Myxosargus, Euparyphus, 

 Caloparyphus, Aochletus 



9. Nemotelinae — Nemotelus 



10. Pachygastrinae — as in James 



There are 2 major points of difference between the present 

 arrangement and that of James. First, the latter includes the genera 

 Xylomya and Solva in a separate family, the Xylomyidae. Al- 

 though there is little information in the literature regarding the 

 larva of Xylomya, many workers have recorded their thoughts on the 

 larva of Solva and its importance in classification; thus, we have 

 papers by Westwood (1840), Osten Sacken (1882), Brauer (1883), 

 Lindner (1937), and Hennig (1952) pointing out that aSoZw should be 

 placed in the Stratiomyidae. In 1899 Austen presented a summation 

 of previous work concerning the classification of Solva and came to 

 the conclusion "that Solva represents a primitive ancestral form of 

 Stratiomyidae, given off from the common stem after the evolution 

 of the characteristic type of larva and mode of pupation, but before 

 the assumption on the part of the imago of the equally characteristic 

 features (venation, spurless tibiae, etc.) exhibited by the more special- 

 ized types of the family." Inasmuch as the larvae of Xylomya and 

 Solva are almost indistinguishable morphologically, I have extended 

 Austen's discussion to include Xylomya and have reorganized the 

 subfamily Xylomyinae. 



A second area of disagreement between the 2 systems is in the 

 classification of the Chtellariinae. A study of the mouthparts re- 

 vealed that there were 3 distinct types present in this 1 subfamily. 



