258 Syrphidae. 



I have kept the genus here because of the easy distinction of the 

 species, but as said, it is very near to Syrphus, so near that I think 

 it has no scientific value. The characters from the head and eyes 

 are to some degree found in species of Syrphus, especially in S. arcuatus, 

 and it is just this species which stands as connecting; Verrall would 

 (Brit. FL VIII, 333) include this species under Lasiophthicus \ but as 

 it has bare eyes, a less broad and less elevated frons and much less 

 distinction between the eye-facets, I think this not possible. As Verrall 

 correctly remarks, Lasiophthicus is in no way related to the hairy- 

 eyed species of Syrphus; the relation is on the contrary to another 

 group, and just through arcuatus to luniger, corollae and their allies. 

 — Girschner has (111. Wochenschr. f. Entom. III, 1897, 570) doubted 

 the validity of the genus, but he says, that in seleniticus the frons is 

 scarcely inflated, and the dividing line between the eye-facets wanting, 

 and adds; "and sehe ich hier keinen Unterschied von anderen Syrphus- 

 Arten." This I do not understand for in my material the two species 

 are quite similar in these respects, as also otherwise stated, I should 

 be inclined to think that Girschner has had S. arcuatus for exaraina- 

 tion, though this species has bare eyes. There is also a paper by 

 Osburn (Journ. of N. Y. Ent. Soc. XVIII, 1910, 58) dealing with the 

 same question. The author comes to the conclusion that the genus 

 is not valid, and this is no doubt correct, but the material he uses 

 is not good, for the species he mentions as seleniticus is in no way 

 this species, as is proved with certainty by his remarks and figures, it 

 is even not a species related to seleniticus; seleniticus is with regard 

 to the shape of the head and eyes quite similar to pyrastri. All the 

 best European authors as Meigen, Loew, Zeller, Verrall and others 

 have always consented therein that these two species are exceedingly 

 similar; does the author think they should have done so, if there was 

 so marked a distinctive character, as his figures would indicate? 



The genus Lasiophthicus was founded by Rondani for all the 

 hairy-eyed species of Syrphus; in 1877 Osten Sacken restricted it 

 under the name Catabomha to the species now in it; with regard to 

 the name of the genus I foUow the Kat. palåarkt. Dipt. as pyrastri 

 was the type of Rondani's genus. 



The developmental stages of the genus have long been known ; 

 already Linné .and Fabricius speak of the larva of pyrastri among 

 Aphides on Pyrus. Further it is mentioned by Reaumur (Mém. Ins. III, 



^ I think the species mentioned by Verrall on the place cited as S. lapponicus 

 from Bigot's collection is my S. arcuatus (see under this species) or else a 

 similar species. 



