172 



KANSAS UNlVKRsnV QUARTKRLV. 



.S'. conn I hi, and except that the latter is from Java and the former 

 from the United States one mi<;lit suspect that they belong to the 

 same genus. 



In Talaroccra iiii^^ripcniiis V\\^(\. {T. sntithii. Will.) the structure, 

 as will be seen from the figure, is very different and exceedingly 

 remarkable. For their description the reader is referred to the 

 original paper. I will only add here that all the ' twenty-four 

 branches are covered with microscopic hairs or pile. In front view, 

 I have stated, the figure presented by the ends of the rods or 

 branches is an oval one. 



Professor Mik % ventures the opinion that this peculiar struc- 

 ture of the male antennae in Talarocera and Dichoccra may be a 

 monstrosity, as a somewhat similar structure has been observed by 

 Strobl and himself in the female of Thryptoccra exolcta Meigen, or 

 at least in specimens that differ only in that character from typical 

 forms. That Dichoccra can be a monstrosity is disproved by the 



Fig. 2. Talaraccnt iiifiri))(nnis Wii'd.; Aiilciina of ftnnalc. 



fact that numerous specimens of the species have since been found 

 by Prof. Aldrich in Idaho, and others by Mr. Snow in eastern 

 Wyoming the past summer. The distribution, it is thus seen, is 

 wide. 



Nor is it possible to consider the wonderfully elaborate structure 

 in the male of Talaroccra a monstrosit}', though but a single speci- 

 men is known yet. 



1 may add here that Tachina ///.s^-Z/A; Walker belongs in the genus 

 Mclanophrxs Will, and is possibly identical with one or the other of 

 the described species. 



% Wiener Eiit. /.fit.. May. lMi.5. 



