282 [May, 



inconspicuous, mostly black pubescence on the rest ; the short pubescence on the 

 front tibine is often conspicuously yellowish down the inside and on the basal joints 

 of the tarsi ; the hind tibise are thin at the base and rather bent just below the 

 middle, hind tarsi long and thin. Wings distinctly tinged with grey, stigma 

 brownish, conspicuous. 



? . All black ; frons broad, its pubescence short, black and abundant, the 

 extreme margins of tlie antennal space are luteous ; cheeks with grey tomentum 

 and pubescence, the cilia on the back of the head grey, almost whitish above and at 

 tlie back of the vertex ; thorax and scutellum with rather abundant pale greyish- 

 yellow pubescence, the tuft on the breast-sides also greyish-yellow ; the scutellum 

 with a distinct yellowish hue on the disc ; alulae and haltercs paler than on the 

 male. Abdomen shining black, or blackish-brown, rather coarsely but sparingly 

 punctate, the hind margin of the fourth and fifth segments slightly reddish ; the 

 pubescence not scarce, but fine, all pale, except at the end of the third segment, on 

 the hinder half of the fourth, and on all the fifth except the basal corners ; in some 

 lights thei'e appears a trace of pale tomentum near the basal corners of the third 

 and fourth segments, where the yellow spots are in the male, and I have found in 

 one case these spots faintly visible ; the legs are coloured as in the male, their 

 pubescence is almost as abundant, but all the long hairs are pale ; the ovipositor is 

 somewhat conspicuous. 



This species must be ratlicr common in Scotland, as I have seen 

 a large series captured by Dr. Buchanan AVhite (whom I have to 

 thank for my specimens) at Kinuoull on March 25th, 1871, and 

 another large series caught by him at Braemar in May, 1871. The 

 two specimens belonging to Mr. B. Cooke which I originally called M. 

 harbifi'ons, are, I expect, from one of the northern English counties. 

 I originally considered this species to represent Fallen's Scceva barbi- 

 frons, and I think it is still open to doubt, as in Fallen's description 

 the only point distinctly opposed to this species is " oculi tamen nudi," 

 and on the other hand " macula in segmento 3 et 4 utrinque laterali 

 flava " applies strictly to no other species I am acquainted with. Loew, 

 however, informs me that the species I have introduced in this j^aper as 

 Si/rjjhus barhifrons (No. 7) occurs on the continent without the basal 

 spots, and states that he has seen no continental species with hairy 

 eyes. It is also only natural that Zetterstedt should thoroughly 

 recognise Fallen's species, and he admits that his S. nitidida is the 

 female of S. barbifrons, and as S. nitidida is a true Syrphus, it would 

 follow that S. barbifrons could not be a Melanostoma. This species 

 i|)roves the purely artificial nature of the genus Melanostoma, as 

 SyrpTius barhifrons, ^ (though to my eyes a true Syrphus), so far 

 troubled Schiner, the author of the genus Melanostoma, that he would 

 not believe it to be the male of S. nitidula, and even separated the 

 Bexes generically ; M. quadrimaculatum also differs from all the other 



