60 [March, 



British species of the genus), must henceforth be termed E. rudis, 

 Fin., while for the species indicated by the latter name in the List 

 another designation must be found. The species hitherto regarded by 

 the writer as ^. 7'udis, ¥\n., and so labelled by him in the Museum col- 

 lection of British Diptera, clearly aho belongs to Panzeria, according 

 to Brauer's diagnosis (although the front in the ^J is much wider), and 

 it is very closely allied to P. rudis, B'ln. (strenua, Mg.). From the 

 latter species, however, it may at once be distinguished by its much 

 smaller size, by the wider front of the <^, and by the narrower and 

 differently shaped second and following joints of the front tarsi in 

 the ? . Unfortunately the E. rudis of our collection (and pre- 

 sumably also of Verrall's List) is indefcrminablc by Brauer's paper. 

 But, npud Brauer {Joe. ciL, p. 542) Nemorma rudis, Schin., which the 

 present species was supposed to be, ^ consohrina, Mg., which is a 

 true Erigone (with stout frontal bristles, &c.), and is ])laced by 

 Brauer {loc. cii., p. 534) after E. radicum. Fin. It has already 

 been stated, however, that our enigmatical species belongs, with the 

 true E. rudis, Fin., to what was termed by Brauer in his classification 

 of 1893 (Verb. z.-b. Ges. Wien, 1898, p. 513), the "sub-genus" 

 Panzeria. 



British Museum (Natural History), 



Cromwell Road, London, S.W. : 

 January 12th, 1905. 



NOTES ON STEPHANOCISCUS DASYURI, Skuse, AND STEPHANO- 

 CIECUS SIMSONI, sp. nov. 



BY THE HON. N. CHARLES ROTHSCHILD, M.A , F.L.S. 



PI. T. 



Skuse^ described S. dasyuri from specimens collected from the 

 Australian Tiger-cat, Dnsyurus maculatus, Kerr. The genus and 

 species in question were founded on specimens representing two 

 genera and two species. One of the species, of which Skuse 

 possessed both sexes, is probably the one described by us under the 

 name of Ceratophyllus hilli,^ while the other, of which Skuse possessed 

 only females, represents the species now generally recognised as S. 

 dasyuri. Some considerable controversy on the subject of this insect 

 has appeared from time to time, and an admirable epitome of it 

 (giving full references) has been published by Mr. W. J. Eainbow.3 

 Mr. Carl F. Baker* has recently made several remarks on the genus 



1. Rec. Aust. Mus., ii, 5, p. 78, pi. xvii (1893). 



2. Novit. Zool. xi, p. 622, pi. xi, figs. 43, 44 (1904). 



3. Rec. Aiust. Mus., v, 1, pp. 53-6.") (1903).i^ 



4. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., xxvii, pp. 430, 431 (1904). 



