606 DERMATINA 



subcostal vein; upper veinlet from the discal cell quickly joining the 

 lower branch of the cubital fork, and the second veinlet joining the same 

 branch just before that joins the subcostal; five posterior cells, the 

 (normally) fourth posterior cell with a blunt end, and the end of each 

 branch of the postical fork rather recurrent; discal cell conspicuously 

 small, pentagonal (the end being blunt) ; discal cross-vein normal (not 

 placed as in true Mydaidce) and almost upright, only just beyond the 

 middle of the discal cell ; small cross- vein distinct, just before the 



Fig. 333. — Megascelus nigricornis 9 . x 14. 



middle of the discal cell ; prsef urea comparatively long ; ambient vein 

 absent or very faint after the end of the subcostal vein ; alulae small 

 and narrow. The genus essentially belongs to the Dermatina and may 

 help to connect the Mydaidce with the Scenopinidm, as it approaches 

 the latter family in size and figure as well as in the antennae, though it 

 seems to indicate even more affinity to the Apioceridcc in the face, 

 antennae, venation, etc. At present I can only regard it as an aberrant 

 genus of the Mydaidce, to which it is somewhat connected by Dolichogaster. 



Synonyviy. — I am very sorry to add to tlie controversy over the spelling of the 

 name Mydas, but I give my reasons for retaining that word ; I am fully conscious 

 of the temptation to consider it a misprint for Midas, as the long antennae give the 

 notion of "asses ears." Osten Sacken (Berl. ent. Zeitschr., 1895, 345) very carefully 

 considered the orthography and ultimately decided in favour of Midas, but I 

 cannot help thinking that his argument was weak when he said, " To justify the 

 " spelling Mydas Dr Gerstaecker should have proved that it was introduced by 

 " Fabricius with a deliberate intention, and that it was not a mere lapsus ; " it 

 seems to me that the proof should be the other way about, and that it should be proved 

 that Mydas was a lapsus and not a deliberate intention. I also notice that 

 Fabricius continued to use the spelling Mydas in 1805, even though LatreHle had 

 altered it to Midas in 1796, and as Latreille in 1802 and 1809 reverted to Mydas it seems 

 to me that fabricius refused to be converted by Latreille, and that on the other 

 hand Latreille was converted by Fabricius. I agree with Osten Sacken that " it 

 " seems evident that the first impression of Latreille was that Mydas was a lapsus 

 " calami on the part of Fabricius," but it seems to me that he was ultimately 

 convinced that it was not a lajjsus. I note also that Rye in Zool. Record, 1877, Ins., 

 ] 93, saidj " The reading Midaidce cannot be supported ; Midas nom. propr., gives 

 " in Latm gen. Midce. Midasidoi, though irregular, preserves identity." I am 

 unable to dogmatise, but I think if a genitive could be formed for Mydas it would 

 be Mydais and consequently I use the term 3fydaidie. It is also peculiar that 

 Osten Sacken in 1896 regularly used the spelling Mydaidoi, though it may be (as 

 he himself considers others have done) through inadvertence. I conclude that the 

 spelling Mydiadoi used by Hunter (Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, xxvii., 121, and in 

 "Contents" of Part) must be a misprint, as he uses Mydaido} on page 153; I am 

 also absolutely unable to accept Bezzi's spelling " Mydidce " (Kat. PalJiarct. Dipt., 

 ii., 99) which he himself corrected to Mydaidoe. I do not use the spelling Mydas 

 simply because it has priority, as I consider orthography stands before priority. 



