258 LEPTID^ 



absence of any alula, while the same characters and the presence of an 

 apical arista distinguish them from the Cmnomyinm, and consequently they 

 appear to be most allied to the Xylophafjhm, but from them they may be 

 distinguished by the very different structure of the antennae. I have 

 drawn up my description from six specimens of Vermileo DeGecri 

 (probably 3 ^3 ?), one of Lampromyia pallida {6), and two of L. 

 sericea (<?), all in my own collection. I know nothing about the North 

 American genus Triptotricha. 



There are many peculiar characters in the venation of the Vermikoninm 

 which are suQ-gestive of other families ; the cubital fork is rather Tabani- 

 form, and the final upward curve of the radial vein in Lam^jromyia resembles 

 that of many Bomhylidcc ; irrespective of the venation, the dichoptic head 

 is only repeated among the Leptidoi in the X^jlophagince, while the shape of 

 the abdomen and the genitalia are suggestive of LeptogasUr in the Asilidm ; 

 the presence of only two pulvilli in Lampromyia pallida is proved to be 

 unimportant by the presence of three in L. sericea ; the long proboscis of 

 Lampromyia reminds one of some CyrLidm. 



Synonymy. — In considering the proper name for this subfamily it is essential to 

 investigate its origin. In 1758 Linne described a Mtisca Vermileo, and referred to 

 " De Geer act. Stockh. 1752, p. 180, 260, t. 5." I am unable to collate this reference, 

 but DeGeer himself, in 1776, gave it as "Act. Acad. Suec. 1752, p. 180, 261, Tab. 5, 

 Mask-Leyonet, Sand-Masken.," and consequently I do not think that DeGeer 

 used the binomial Musca Vermileo. In 1776, however, DeGeer gave the life- 

 history in great detail and described the perfect insect under the name of Nemotelus 

 Vermileo, but in 1775 Fabricius had placed it in his genus Bhagio. In founding 

 the genus Jihwjio Fabricius included tour species, of which the tirst two were the 

 well-known scolopacea and tringaria, but of the third species, Vermileo, he said 

 " Nimis pra^cedentibus affinis," and consequently H. Vermileo cannot be considered 

 in any way the type of the genus R/uu/io, even if Fabricius was not justified (as I 

 think he was) in subse(iuently altering E/iagio (on the ground of preoccupation by 

 Rhafiiitm) to Leptis. In 1 834 Macquart founded on this species the genus Vermileo, 

 and renamed the species Degeerii ; faulty though that action was, the name Vermileo 

 holds generic priority, and consequently I call the subfamily Vermileoninw. In 1 840 

 Blanchard is said to have proposed the name Psammorycter for the same genus (in 

 spite of an existing Psammoryctes Poepp. Mamm. 1836, and s\\\:)i?am\.j Psammoryc- 

 tince), and that name was adopted by Loew, who founded on it in 1874 (Berl. Ent. 

 Zeitschr., xviii., 381) the subfamily i^sffHiWioryeto-mcr; it is certain that Loew only 

 adopted the name Psammorycter because he refused to accept Mac(|uart's generic 

 name of Latin derivation. The same genus was again described by Ferris in 1852 

 under the name of Apogon, but there was already a prior genus of that name. 



I am unable to collate all the references in Kertesz's Katalog (1903), but I notice 

 several mistakes. Rliagio Fabr. is Syst. Entom., 761 instead of 760 ; Apogon (Pisces) 

 was, according to Agassiz, founded by " Lacep." and not " Lacord." ; I do not think 

 DeGeer gave the binomial Musca Vermileo in 1752, Imt Linne did in Syst. Nat., 

 ed. X., 590 (1758), and DeGeer's second reference would be more correct as Mem. a. 

 mist. Ins., vi., 168, Nemotehis (1776) ; the first reference to Fabricius should be Syst. 

 Entom., 762 (Rhagio) (1775); Bigot's reference to Lampromyia should be (1885) and 

 not (185). 



Lampro7)iyia argeutata Bigot, Bull. Soc. Ent. Fr. (6) v. Ixviii. (1885) = Lepty noma 

 sericea, Westw., Trans. Ent, Soc. Lond., 1876, 518, but Leptynoma Westw. = i/a»i- 

 l>rcnnyia Macq. 



