NO. 3 NEOTROPICAL FLIES, TABANIDAE FAIRCIIILD 21 



Knab (1916) as syn. of luteoflaims Bell. Not Cryptotyliis limomis Fairchild 

 (1940a). (N.S.) 



*litigiosus Wlk. 1853, Dipt. Saund., 1:37. (Tabanus) B. M.(H) = Phaeo- 

 tabanus Lutz and Neiva (1914) ; Bequaert (1924) genotype of Phaeota- 

 bantts. The $ in B. M. is now headless but agrees with current interpretations 

 of the species and with Krober's (1930b) description and figs. It should be 

 taken as lectotype. The d* is a different species, unknown to me. 



*lhndits Wlk. 1848, List, i: 162. (Tabamis) B. M.(H) = Tabanus importunus 

 Wied. 1828. Krober (1934) as syn. of T. viduiis Wlk. (N.S.) 



*longiappendiculatus Macq. 1855, Dipt. Exot., Suppl. 5:32. (Tabanus) 

 B. M.(H) = Cryptotylus. = Tabanus luteoflavus Bell. 1859. = *T. pnrns 

 Wlk. i860. = *T. mexicamis var. limonus Towns. 1897. = T. pallidus Krob. 

 1930. ^ T. pallidiilus Krob. 1934. Krober (1934) as (Macrocoriniis) . 

 (N.S.) 



*longipalpis Macq. 1848, Dipt. Exot., Suppl. 3:9. (Pangonia) B. M. = 

 Histriosilvius Krober i93od genotype; redescribes and figures type. Lutz 

 (1909) as Esenbcckia; Ricardo (1900a) as Diatomineura; Enderlein (1925) 

 as Protosih'iiis. 



*longipennis Ric. 1902, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 7, 11:433. {Diatomineura) 

 B. M. == (Pseudoscione) Lutz et al., 1918; Fairchild (1951a) genotype of 

 Pseudoscione; Enderlein (1922) ; Krober (1930k) as Listriosca. 



*longirostris Macq. 1847, Dipt. Exot., Suppl. 2: 12. (Pangonia) B. M.(H) = 

 Fidena nigripes (V. Roder) 1892, nom. nov. Not Pangonia longirostris 

 Hardwicke 1825. Krober (1933b) as longirostris. = ? Erephopsis brevistria 

 Lutz 1909. The type also agrees with specimens in B. M. det. aurifasciata 

 End. by Krober. 



*loricornis Krob. 1931, Zool. Anz., 95(1-2) : 32. (Fidena) B. M.(H) = *Pan- 

 gonia basalis var. Wlk. 1854, List, 5, Suppl. i : 322, not *basalis Wlk. 1848. 

 Ricardo (1900a) says Walker's second basalis 1854 not same as his first. 

 Krober's type of loricornis is the second specimen discussed by Ricardo, not 

 the type of Walker's 1854 description, though I believe the two are con- 

 specific. 



*lucidulus Wlk. 1848, List, 1:188. (Tabanus) B. M. = *Tabamis obliqmis 

 Wlk. 1850. Not T. luciduliis, Fchld. (1951a) and not T. lucidulus Austen in 

 litt., Bequaert (1940), the latter = T. obumbratus Beq. 1940. The synonymy 

 of the three Jamaican species of this group appears to stand as follows: (i) 

 *T. lucidulus Wlk. 1848 = *T. obliquus Wlk. 1850. = T. lucidulus Krob. 

 1930. (2) T. townsendi Johns. =z *T. angustifrons Towns, not Macq. = 

 *7". lucidulus Be(juacrt in part 1940. = *T. lucidulus Fchld. 1951. (3) 

 T. obumbratus Beq. 1940 == *T. lucidulus Austen in litt. The true lucidulus 

 does not appear to have been seen by Bequaert. It has a narrower frons, 

 small oval callus less than half width of frons and unconnected with the 

 median ridge, as figured by Krober. Wings quite heavily fumose. 



*luctuosus Macq. 1838, Dipt. Exot., 1(1): 319. (Tabanus) B. M. = Cata- 

 chlorops, Krober (1934). Barretto (1946) with nigripennis Krob. 1931 as 

 synonym. The type from Brazil has wings wholly black, with all cells fenes- 

 trate; the specimen from Surinam is different, with apex of wing hyaline. 

 Krober (1939) seems to have used a form similar to the Surinam species in his 

 redescription of luctuosa. His nigripennis, from description and figures, is 

 composite, the description agreeing fairly well with luctuosa, the figures not. 



