206 STRATIOMYID.^ 



female (of wliicli lie had apparently only one specimen) he say.s "die hinter.sten 

 " Schenkel haben vor der Spitze ein braunes Biindchen, welches nach _ letzterer hin 

 " ziemlich scharf begrenzt, nach der Wurzel hin aber sanft verwaschen ist ; Vorder — 

 " und Mittelschenkel zeigen die verwaschenere Anlage einer iihnlichen Zeichnung ; 

 " auch sincl alle Schienen gegen das Ende hin gebrjiunt, doch so dass dieser Braunung 

 " nur an den Hinterschienen mehr bemerkbar ist, auch iiberall die allerjiusserste 

 " 8pitze freilasst und sich auf der Aussenseite welter nach der Wurzel hin erstreckt, 

 " als dies auf der Innenseite der Fall ist ; die 4 letzten Glieder aller Fiisse sind 

 " dunkelbraun ; dass erste ist kaum an der alleraussersten Spitze etwas gebriiunt " : 

 again later on when comparing B.fuscijws with B. chalyheata he says "die Fiihler 

 " kiirzer, der Metatarsus der hhitersten Beine langer, ausserdem bei dem Mannchen 

 " weniger verdickt," thus not recognising any distinction in the colour of the basal 

 joint of the hind tarsi in the two species • also at the close Loew stated that "Hr. 

 " V. Heyden theilte mir diese Art unter clem ebenfalls sehr passenden Namen Ber. 

 " brevicornis mit ; in der That hat sie unter alien bekannten Arten die kiirzesten 

 " Fiihler." This description of Loew's therefore almost exactly agrees with my 

 ])resent description of B. fiiscipes, and it may be concluded that Loew at that time 

 did not know any specimens like true B. geniculata ; on the same page he also 

 wrote " Triigt mich das Gediichtniss nicht, so gehort auch Beris geniculata Curtis 

 " Brit. Ent. hierher"; that is "Unless my memory deceives me !" thereby showing 

 that he had no specimen before him at that time which professed to be B. geniailata 

 Curtis, and very likely no description as he gave no reference to it in his synonymy. 

 It is probable that the difficulty has arisen between B.fuscijies and B. genindata 

 through this trivial remark of Loew's. Zetterstedt's B.Jiisci2'>es (1849) is probably the 

 true species, because he said of the male (the only sex he knew) "jiedibus brunneis" and 

 " Femora brunnea... Tibiae brunnescentes " when I think he would have said "nigri" 

 or " nigrescentes " for B. genicnlaia ; as however he said nothing about the antennae 

 except that they were as in B. 6-dentata (= chalybeata) his description is rather 

 uncertain, though he detected Loew's error about the colour of the halteres. Walker 

 in 1851 and in 1854 deliberately kept both the species separate and in his Ins. Brit. 

 Dipt, described them so well that English collectors have recognised his B. 

 geniculata ever since ; I can feel but little doubt that Haliday encouraged Walker 

 to this action, and that he sent a genuine B. geniculata to Loew which has since been 

 found in his collection. Wahlberg in 1854 also claimed to have caught a female B. 

 geniculata (as distinct from B. fuscipes in spite of Loew's doubt) in Lapland, and 

 gave such distinctive characters as to make it probable that he was right ; though 

 I cannot quite agree with all the details of his description. Zetterstedt (1855) quoted 

 from Wahlberg but added " Vix ad Ber. fuscijtedem referenda, ut opinavit Lotv 

 "(Ent. Zeit, 1846, p. 284); nam ab hac pluribus notis differt B. geniculata, utpote 

 " luculenter monstravit Prof. Wahlberg, 1. c." Schiner also kept the two species 

 separate in 1855 though he had only one specimen of each, and he said that his B. 

 geniculata agreed entirely with the specimen in Loew's collection which had been 

 received from Haliday himself ; and it may be noted that Schiner was at this period 

 in close communication with Loew and that therefore Loew had apparently by this 

 time separated the two species in his collection, but unfortunately m 1862 Schiner 

 sank B. geniculata without a word of comment as a synonym of B. fuscipes, and as 

 his Faun. Austr. Dipt, has been the dipterological guide for all European writers 

 ever since it appeared no further attempt has been made to distinguish the two 

 species. The next writer was Becker in 1887, who took it for granted that a number 

 of specimens he had caught at St Moritz in Switzerland were B. fuscipes because 

 they agreed with some of Loew's distinctions of that species from B. chalyheata, and 

 so after stating that Loew and Schiner had pointed out that B. geniculata Curt, 

 was a synonym of B. fuscipes (which was a considerable exag'geration of Loew's and 

 Schiner's statements), he, as his specimens did not well answer to Loew's description 

 of 1846, gave a full and amended description, but unfortunately his description is a 

 very good one of B. geniculata and not of B. fuscipes ! 



Subsequent descriptions appear to refer to the true B. fusc%p>es. Meigen in 1820 

 described B. nigra from a female sent him from England by Dr Leach, and his 

 description might apply to the female of B. fuscipes as described above ; it is 

 probable that Leach sent him what he thought was a pair of his species, though the 

 probable type of B. nigra in the Paris Museum appears to me to be a female of B. 

 chalybeata while the true B. geniculata seems to have been entirely unknown to 

 Meigen. Mtisca similis Forster (1771) remains an unintelligible species ; it appears 



