262 NOTES. 



On this family, consult the following papers: 



Hal id ay. Remarks on the generic distribution of the british 



Hydromyzidae (Annals of Nat. Hist. IS'-id, Vol. HI). 

 S ten ham mar, Forsok till Cruppering och Revision af dc Svenska 



Epbydrinae, in the Kongl. Vet. Ac. Handl. 1844. 



H. Loew, On the North American Ephydrinidae, in the Monogr. 



etc. I, p. 129 (1862), where a definition of the genera will be found. 



H. Loew, Die Europaischen Ephydrinidae, Neue Dipt. Beitr. VII, 



1860. This paper, together with the preceding arc very important. 



H. Loew, Die Gattung Canace, in the Berl. Ent. Z 1874, where 



some further suggestions about the classification will be found. 



318. Ephydra halophila Packard. The name cannot stand, as there 



is Caenia halophila v. Ileydeu, which is an Ephydra. 



819. Epbydra oscitans Walker. Whether the synonymy that I 

 suggest is adopted or not, the name must he dropped, as there is 

 another and eailier E. oscitans, also by Walker in List etc. IV, p. 

 1106 (see under Scatella). 



320. On the european Geomyzidae, compare Loew, Berl. Ent. Z. 

 IX, 18(i5, p. 14—25; on BiaMata, ibid. VIII, p. 357—368. 



321. Phortica Schiner is not interfered with by Phorticu^ Stnl, 

 Reduvida 1860. A»iiota Loew was published in the same year with 

 Fliortica , a few months earlier, but has never been characterized. Ten 

 years after its publication, a few words of explanation appeared in the 

 Centuries, Vol. II, p. 288, to establish its identity with Phortica. 



322. Chlorops, Oscinis, Siphonella. About the relation of these 

 genera to each other and their respective limits, compare Loew, Wien. Ent. 

 Monatschr. Vol. II, the article: Zwanzig neue Dipteren, in' the note to 

 No. 11, Oscinis gihipes. 



For the subdivisions of Chlorops, in tlie sense of Macquart, see 

 Loew, Uehcr die bisher in Schlesien aufgefimdenen Arten der Gattung 

 Chlorops, in the Schles. Zeitschr. f. Ent. 1866. Contains much more 

 than its title implies, and is an elaborate monograph of the genus. 



323. In the Jahrbuch der K. K. gelehrten Ges. in Krakau (1870), 

 p. 15, Mr. Loew says that Gymuopa, on account of its venation, 

 should be placed among the Epihydridae. But as he does not state to 

 what group in that family it should be referred, and as, in the list of 

 Diptcra, appended to that same article, Gymnopa is left in its old 

 place among the Oscinidae, I will follow his example here. In the same 

 place Mr. Loew, explains why the older name of the genus, Mosillus, 

 should be rejected. Whether his grounds are sufficient, I do not pretend 

 to decide; but that 3Iosilhis has not been entirely overlooked between 

 its publication in 1804 and its reinstatement by Schiner, is proved by 

 a curious passage in the Preface of Wiedemann's Auss. Zw., I, p. XI 

 (1828^, in which he speaks of Mosillus as something wellknown to him, 

 and refers to it (erroneously?) the Sargits aeneus of Fabricius. 



An earlier article by Mr. Loew on Gymnopa (Stett. Ent. Z. 1848) 

 discusses the european species, and not the systematic position of the genus. 



J 



