1903.] -^^y 



small form with the whitish under-side, which has since been re- 

 described as C. suhpallidus by Dr. Lucas, thus showing that Herr Semper 

 was perfectly right in his identification —Miis. GodofF. Lep., xiv, p. 

 163 (1878). 



The mistake has arisen by my having compared Herr Semper's 

 type of Q. hyacinthina with specimens in the British Museum Col- 

 lection, which were labelled C. erinus, F'ab. 



Mr. Heron agrees with me that the above synonymy is correct. 



London : June, 1903. 



CHAMAESTRPHUS LUSITANICUS, Mik : A NEW BRITISH 

 SYEPHID FLY. 



BY D. SHARP, M.A., M.B., F.R.S. 



The discovery of this species in Britain is very unexpected. 

 The individual has been for some time in Mr. G. H. Verrall's hands, 

 who will doubtless in due course have somethiTig to say about it. 

 Though he tells me the specimen does not quite agree with the cotypes 

 of C. lusitnnicus in his possession, I feel pretty well convinced that 

 the British insect will prove to be a variety— at most— of the Portu- 

 guese insect. The discovery in Britain of a species that is known 

 only from Cintra in Portugal, is so remarkable that it is worth while 

 to recite the little that is known about the species. 



When Colonel Terbury was in Portugal in 1896, he secured at 

 Cintra specimens of a Chamaesyrphus rather similar to C. sccevoides. 

 They were sent to the late Professor Mik, who described them as 

 C. lusitanicus. He retained some of the specimens, and the others 

 were given by Colonel Terbury to Mr. Verrall. This is all that is 

 known of C. lusitanicus at present ouside the British islands. 



When Mr. Jenkinson was at Boat o' Garten in July last, on the 

 30th of that month Miss Annie Allard (now Mrs. Ward), working 

 assiduously on a vile day, captured there a Syrphid which her acute 

 entomological intelligence recognised as something unusual, and 

 which, while it was still alive, she gave to Mr. Jenkinson, by whom 

 it was mounted and labelled at the time. He recognised it as a 

 Chamaesyrphus^ and presented it to the University. On placing it in 

 the collection I saw that it offered some differences from C. sccevoides, 

 and after comparison with Mik's description I entertain little doubt 

 that it falls into the category of his species. 



The authenticity of this Scotch example is therefore unimpeach- 



