Empididae. 17 



sucked quite out so that only the empty skin was left; the hole pier- 

 ced by the Hijhos was seen in the front end of thorax just behind 

 the head. 



Geographical distribution: — Europe down into Italy towards 

 the north to Lapland. 



Remarks: As will be seen from the synonymicai lists which I 

 have given for the species of Hyhos, I have united some of the 

 species generally accepted hitherto, but as I am not quite sure vvrith 

 regard to the given synonymy I shall make some remarks about it. 

 With regard to H. grossipes I think no doubt may arise, though 



Schiner says: „Genitalien stark verdickt", which is so far from 



being the case, that this species is just the one that has the smallest 

 genitalia. That H. fenioratus and fumipennis are only one species 

 I feel quite sure, and this has also already been suggested by other 

 authors. But with regard to H. culiciformis there are great doubts. 

 The species which I call culiciformis is with certainty identical with 

 H. infuscatus Zett. , as I have examined Stæger's type specimens; 

 (as Zetterstedt says: „Stæg. in litt," the name is due to Stæger); my 

 reasons for taking it to be identical with culiciformis Fabr. are the 

 foUowing: Fabricius founded his culiciformis in Syst. Ent. 1775 under 

 Asilus; in 1805 in Syst. Antl. he had clavipes (= grossipes) under Empis 

 and flavipes {= fenioratus) and funehris (= grossipes) under Hyhos', 

 culiciformis on the other hånd he placed under Dasypogon. About 

 the genus Hyhos he says: „feraoribus posticis saepius incrassatis", 

 but about the genus Dasypogon only: „pedibus validis, cursoriis" ; 

 this latter term would among the species of Hyhos answer just to 

 culiciformis. It was Meigen who first noted this, and in 1804 in 

 Klass. eur. zweifl. Ins. he says under Asilus culiciformis Fabr. „SoUte 

 diese Art vielleicht eine Bukkelfliege (Hyhos) sein?" Taking these 

 facts into consideration I think it probable, that infuscatus Zett. is 

 identical with culiciformis Fabr., but whether vitripennis Meig. in 

 Syst. Beschr. and also in Zett. Dipt. Scand. and culiciformis in Schiner 

 are really identical with my culiciformis I cannot be sure. There is 

 also the possibility, that the species of the mentioned authors is only 

 a grossipes with hyaline wings, and with regard to Zetterstedt this 

 view is confirmed by his note (VIII, 2995): „Pedes maris ut in 

 H. funehri pilosis". However this may be, I think the interpreta- 

 tion of infuscatus Zett. as culiciformis Fabr. is correct, otherwise 



2 



