764 REPUTED BRITISH SPECIES 



ASILID^. 



63 AntijMlus varipes Meig. This species was included by Stephens in his Catalogue 



as having been taken by himself within twenty-five miles of London, but 

 he was in doubt whether he had correctly identified it; he also gave as a 

 synonym As. maculosus Harr. Ex. 64, pi. xvii., F. 6, but my interpretation of 

 Harris' species is that it is almost certainly Ejntri'jytus cingulatus ; on 

 the other hand the specimens under the name of A. varipes in Stephens' 

 collection in the British Museum are two immature Machimus atricapillus. 

 In the Entomological Club collection A. varipes is represented by Neoitamus 

 cyamirus. Walker (Ins. Brit. Dipt., i., 56) described A. varipes and said "Not 

 rare (E.)." In C. W. Dale's collection A. varipes was represented by three 

 normal specimens of Dysmachus trigonus, one very immature specimen, and 

 one Epitriptus cingvlatus. 



64 Dysmachus cristatus Meig. Stephens doubtfully included this species as having 



occurred near London, and ixova. that time onwards it has been considered 

 to be British ; Walker (Ins. Brit. Dipt., i., 50) said " Not rare (E.)." There 

 is not the slightest doubt that all British records refer to the common 

 Dysmachus trigonus Meig. The true D. cristatus is at present only known 

 from Spain. 



65 D. forcipatus L. The old British authors all included this as British, and I 



have endeavoured to find out what species was intended by Stephens and 

 Walker. Stephens gave it as one of the species occurring within twenty-five 

 miles of St Paul's and as having been taken by himself, but the specimens 

 in his collection appear to have been Eutolmus rufiharhis ; he also included 

 as a synonym "As. tipuloides Harr.," but Harris' species must be quite distinct 

 because of the colour of the legs and was very probably Neoitamus cyanurus. 

 It is not improbable that the form of Asilus forcipatus mentioned by Linne 

 in Syst. Nat., Ed. x., p. 606, when he said " Varietas major Tihiis ferrtigineis " 

 may be N. cyanurus. Linne's A. forcipatus itself was described as having 

 " Pedes nigri," and is now commonly believed to be Dysmachus jncipes Meig., 

 which is a probable though at present unidentified British species. Walker 

 in saying (Ins. Brit. Dipt., i., 52) "Generally distributed. (E.I.)" probably 

 also referred to E. rufiharhis, which seems to have been a commoner insect 

 in Britain in Stephens' time. I cannot help believing that i\\Q A. forcipatus 

 recorded by B. Cooke (Naturalist, v., 134) as " common on the Cheshire coast " 

 must refer to P. alhiceps. 



66 D. forcipula Zell. Walker doubtfully included this in his synonyms of the 



supposed British D. forcip)atus L. (Ins. Brit. Dipt., i., 52). The name is now 

 sunk as a synonym of D. picipes Meig. 



67 D. hifurcus Loew. Walker in 1849 (List Dipt. Brit. Mus., 468) recorded this 



as British, but made no reference to it in 1851. He gave as doubtful 

 synonyms A. picijies Meig. and A. varius Gurtl. 



68 Machimus annulipes Brulle. Under the name of A. hasalis Lw. (a synonym of 



M. annulipes) Walker (Ins. Brit. Dipt., i., 51) described a species concerning 

 which he said "Very rare. In Mr Stephens' collection." I have some note 

 which associates this species of Walker's with Eutolmus sinuatus Lw. ; 

 and another note referring to Stephens' specimen in the British Museum 

 which intimates that it was a very small female of Machimus rusticus, but 

 some details taken do not agree with that species. These details are : 



Face-beard not crowded, black above and orange below ; face whitish 

 yellow, hardly wider at the mouth than at the antennae ; festoon apparently 



