146 [-Imie, 



Loxocera albiscta, Schrnk. — In the latest Catalogiie this species is called 

 ichncumoiiea, L., but Zettei'stodt was i^ositive that Linne's species was the same 

 as the one I call aristata, Pnz. 



Loxocera nigrifrons, Mcq. — Dr. D. Sharp confirmed the occurrence of this 

 species in Britain on p. 255 of this Magazine for 1903, 



Lissa. — This genus is placed among the Sepsidm in Kertesz's Catalogue, but 

 the general clothing of the body and the absence of vibrissse surely point to 

 its being more related to the Psilicl!e among which it stands in o\ir List, thoiigh 

 the ovipositor of the female shows relationsliip to the Ortalidie. 



CHLOEOPID^. 

 Centor, Lw. — Hendel has proposed a new name, Cetema, for this genus 

 (surely he meant to have wi-itten Centema) on the ground that it was pre- 

 occupied in the Coleox>tera (Schoenherr, 1847). 



Melannm, Becker. — This genus, which comes very near to Caj^noptera, Lw., 

 was founded by Becker (1910) for the Chlorops lateralis, Hal., of our List. 

 The species is not uncommon on the Suffolk coast. 



Haplegis rufifrons, Lw. — Becker uses Meigen's name of diadema for this 

 species, in spite of the very misleading nature of Meigen's description. 



*Diplotoxa approximatonervis, Zett., has been taken by Col. Yerbury at 

 Nairn, from May to July ; it is miich smaller than messoria, witli the cross veins 

 very close together, and the legs and scutellum pale. 



*Diplotoxa limhata, Mg. {inconsta,ns, Lw.). — This species is not uncommon 

 at Chippenham Fen (Cambs.), in March and April ; I have also taken it at 

 Palling-on-Sea (Norfolk), in June, and in the garden at Newmarket (Suffolk), 

 in September. Guerin described and figured it, 1842 (Mem. Soc. d'Agric. Paris), 

 under the name of Chlorops herpini. I accept Meigen's name of limhata for 

 this species, because there is nothing veiy contradictory in his description, 

 but this cannot be said of his description of cinctipes, the name by which 

 Becker considers the species ought to be known. 



Meromysa. — Herr Becker considers that the characters \ipon which the 

 species have been separated in the past are variable and unrelia))le, and in his 

 recent work on the Chloropidse recognises only four European species. My own 

 studies have led me to the conclusion that many of these characters can be 

 proved to be reliable by an examination of the male genitalia, for instance, 

 variegata, Mg., and Iwta, Mg., as distingiiished by Schiner are distinct species, 

 as are also saltatrix, L., and nigriventris, Mcq. 



Chlorops meigenii, Lw. — Becker uses Schrank's name of nasuta for this 

 species, with lineata, P., and umhelliferarum, Schrank, as synonyms, but he has 

 apparently overlooked the fact that the name nmhelliferarmn dates back to 

 Scopoli (Ent. Carn., p. 349), 1763. With regard to the resiu-rection of these 

 old names, I cannot help thinking that unless we can bring forward reasons for 

 bringing them to life sufficiently convincing to prevent futiire students from 

 objecting to their \ise, we had far better let them sink into obscurity. 



Chlorops hrevimana, Lw. — Svxrely the absurdity of sinking Loew's laame as 



