OF THE TABANID^ OF THE UNITED STATES. 473 



Wiedemann. 



T. anmilcitus Sny. (Auss. Zw., I, p. 185). Ccrtninly not among the species of whlcli I liave specimens. 



T. gracilis (Auss. Z\v., I, p. 15G, 71, Georgia) nnl<nown; see T. tencr O. S. No. 11. 



T. iiif/rijx's (Ibit-1., p. 14'2, 50) ; see No. 13, T. coffeattis Macq. 

 Macquaet. 



T. bultimorcnsis (DI]it. Exot., 5= Sup].!., p. 34; Baltimove). Perhaps T. costcdis WieiL? 



T. Jico/or (Ibid., 2= Suppl, p. ^1 ; South Carolina). Perhaps T. {jiijuateus DeGoer, female ? Compare 

 this species (No. 37). 



7*. ccB«o/fl«p?flft^s (Ibid., 5° Suppl., p. 32 ; Baltimore). Perhaps T. rjiganieus DeGecr, male? See this 

 species (No. 37). 



T. carolinensis (Ibid., I, 1, p. 145; Carolina) ; belongs in the group of T. socius, or perhaps of T. micro- 

 ccphalus, astuius, etc. ? 



T. cinguhitus (Ibid., I, 1, p. 144, 4G ; Philadelphia). I do not recognize this species. 



T. dorsonotatKS (Ibid., 2' Suppl., p. 22; Carolina; a male). May be the male of T. rufus Pal. No. 34, 

 which I have not seen? 



T. fiisconcrvosus (Ibid., I, 1, p. 147, 42 ; no locality ; Walker, List, etc., I, p. 149, has it from Florida). 

 May be T. turhidus Wied. No. 1. 



T. hirliocidatus (Ibid., S' Sup[il., p. 33, 128 ; Baltimore ; a male). Ei/rs pidirscoU. I do not know this 

 si)ecies. The words '• anlennes .... a dent un peu alhjugee," may betray the male of my T. ceras- 

 tes No. 42. 



T. nanus (Ibid., 1" Suppl., p. 42, 88; Texas) ; see my T. 2)sammoj)hihis No. 18 ; the name is preoccu- 

 pied by Wiedemann. 



T. Novcc Scotice (2' Suppl., p. 24, 110). Unrecognizable. 



T. punctijyennis (2° Suppl., p. 23, 108; Philadel]jliia). Agrees exactly with T. lasio^yhthalrmts No. 47, 

 excejit that the pubescence of the eyes is not mentioned. In any case the name must be given up, 

 as there is an earlier T. piinctipemiis by Macquart himself; Dipt. Exot., I, 2, p. 185. 



T. vicinvs (Ibid., I, 1, p. 143, 44; Carolina) ; of tlie group of my T. socius No. 49. 



T. utiicolor (Ibid., 2'' Suppl., p. 22, 107 ; Carolina). I no not know this species. There is a much earlier 

 T. unicolor Wied. 



RONDANI. 



T. chdioptenis. I transcribe the rather inaccessible description. (Female.) Ocidi nudi. Antennaj 

 supcrne in dentem non extensaj, fulvse. Palp)i fulvesccntes. Frons rufi. Fades sordide albicans. 

 Thorax dorso fnlvo-rubescente, pleuris paulo grisescentibus. Scutelhim fulvo-ruboscens, niargine 

 paulo griseo. Ahdornen fulvo-rufescens, segmentis penultimo et prwcedente in medio paulo fuscis ; 

 omnibus lineola marginali postica, parum manifesta, sublutcscente. SqitamcB ct /i«Zto"es fulvesccntes. 

 J'edcs fulvo-rufi, tarsis vix obscurioribus, et gcniculis angustissime lutescentibus. Ake paulo infus- 

 cataa, circa venas aliquantulum fusco lutescentes, ad venarum conjunctiones fusco-nigricantis (sic) 

 maodatre. Stigmata et costa anguste fusco-lutea. Longit., raillim. 18. Carolina. (Nnovi Annali 

 di Sc. Nat. di ijologna, Scpt.-Oct., 1850.) 

 I do not know this species. 

 Walker. 



T. comes (List, etc., I, p. 172. T. inscitus; changed into T. comes, Iliid., V, p. 173; Hudson's B.ay Terr. ; 

 Nova Scotia). The author describes a specimen without head. I find in my notes that when, in 

 1859, I visited the British Museum, T. conies was represented in it by five sjiccimens, belonging to 

 three different species, all of them of the difficult groups of T. niarginalis Wied., or 1\ illotus O. S. 



T. confusvs (List, etc., I, p. 147; Georgia). 



T. iniitans (List, etc., I, p. 146 ; Georgia). 

 Both of the group of T. ahdominedis ; perhaps this very species. 



T. conUrmimis (Dipt. Saunders., p. 24 ; LTnited States). The description of the abdomen suggests T. 

 costalis ; but the thorax is s.aid to be gray, with hoary hairs. 



T. derivatus (List, etc., I, p. 151 ; North America). Walker says he describes a male ; in the British 

 Museum I saw a single female specimen, which, at that time, I did not recognize. The descrijition 

 suogests nothing to me now, and is rather unmeaning. There is some confusion in the Latin diag- 

 nosis, where in the third line, uigris must, I suppose, be read instead oi fulois. 



