NOTES. 217 



The name Uhicn appeared first in ScopoH, Entomologia Carniolica 

 1763, where Hirtea longicornis Stratiomys strigata F.) is described. — 

 For an unexplained reason, Fabricius, in the Supplement to his Ento- 

 mologia Systematica, published in 1798, took up the name Hirtea 

 (without any reference to Scopoli) and applied it to a number of 

 species, the majority of which are Bibio's. At the same time, the 

 majority of Fabriiius's Bibio's are our Therevae, and Fabricius's There- 

 vae are our Phasiae, Trichopodae etc. ! 



Meigen followed Fabricius's precedence about Hirtea in his earlier 

 work: Klassification etc. (1S04), and Fabricius quoted Meigen in his 

 System. Antliatorum (1805% In his principal work, however, (1818) 

 Meigen rejected the name Hhiea, and very properly adopted Geoffrey's 

 earlier name Bihio. Later writers have followed ]\Ieigen's example, 

 except Zetterstedt, who maintains the name Hirtea, for our Bihio. 



It is very probable that Stratiomyia longicornis Scopoli (Syn. 

 strigata Fabricius), which shows several peculiarities of structure, will, 

 by and by, form a separate genus, and then Hhiea will be the proper 

 name for that genus. 



13. Bibio articulatus Say. According to Loew, Centur. V, 10, Nota 

 this species belongs in the vicinity of B. abhreviatna, frutermis, 

 nigripilu^, but the descriptions, both of Say and ot Wiedemann are 

 not explicit enough for identification. 



14. About Plecia, Penthetria, Hesperinus, etc. compare Loew, Berl. 

 Entom Z. II, p. 101. Also by the same: Berichtigung der generischen 

 Bestimmung einiger fossilen Dipteren, in the Zeitschr. f. Ges. Naturw. 

 Vol. XXX fl, p SO (1868). 



15. About Scatopse, see Loew, Linnaea Entom. I, p. 324, a mono- 

 graph of the european species. Also another paper, by the same, in 

 the Zeitschr. f. d. Ges. Naturw., Vol. XXXV. (1870). 



16 The identity of Arthria Kirby with Aspistes and of Aiihria 

 analis with Aftpistcs horeaJis seems to me very probable, some dis- 

 crepancies between the descriptions notwithstanding. 



17. Blepharoceridae. Compare Loew's Monographic Essay; La 

 famiglia dei Blefaroceridi, in the BoUct. della Societa Entom. Italiana, 

 Vol. I, p. 85 (1809). — The same author's ; Revision der Blepharoceridae 

 (in the Schles. Zeitschr. f. Entomol. Neue Folge, Heft VI, Breslau 

 1877) is in the main a reproduction of the Italian paper, but being of 

 later date contains several additions. 



In the Monographs etc. IV, p. 8, I suggested the possibility of a 

 relationship between the Blepharoceridae and the Bti/cliopteriiui. But 

 since 1 know the Blepharoceridae better, I am less inclined to perceive 

 that relationship In the structure of the eyes this family stands nearer 

 to Simulium and Bibio. 



18. Asthenia americana Walker, List, etc. I, p. 28, according to 

 Loew, ^Monographs I, p 8, is not a Blepharoceiid at all, and any one, 

 who reads the description, will agree with this conclusion It seems 

 furthermore that Mr. Walker's type is not to be found in its place at 

 the British Museum; compare ?»Ir. Ilaliday's note in the Bolletino dtlla 



