86 NEW AUSTRALIAN ASILID.E, 



Subfamily Asilinse. 



Some suggestions are here given for a slight revision 

 of the Australian genera belonging to this subfamily. 



The old genus Asilus, on account of the vast number 

 of S2>ecies that it contained, was divided up by Loew into a 

 number of subsidiary groups, which are regarded by differ- 

 ent entomologists either as true genera or as subgenera of 

 Asilus. The groups more particularly referred toi the 

 specie® of the palaearctic and nearctic regions, and in classi- 

 fying these they have proved a great convenience. An 

 attempt has also been made to include the Australian 

 species in the same groups, but I think incorrectly. I have 

 carefully compared the Australian with the principal palse- 

 arctic groups, and have come to the conclusion that the 

 differences shown by the former are too considerable to ad- 

 mit of their being placed together ; there is a considerable 

 resemblance between the groups of the two^ regions, but this 

 resemblance sieems to have been merely the effect of an in- 

 dependent development proceeding on jDarallel lines. To 

 give an illustration, an Australian species has been placed 

 in the genus Dysiiiaclius under the name of D. rudis. Now, 

 although it resembles Dysmadnis in having a mane of long 

 bristles descending to the anterior margin of the thorax, it 

 differs in the fundamental character of the ovipositor, for 

 whereas in Di/siiiacJius the terminal lamellfe are wedged in 

 beneath the upper piece of the ovipositor, as is also' the 

 case with Eutnlmus, in the Australian species they are free, 

 thus showing its relationship with quite different groups. 

 As to the Australian species of Neoifavms, a few of these 

 are fairly typical, though even of these one species has the 

 tibiae completely black, instead of the usual orange; but 

 there are alsoi a large number of other species at present 

 included in the genus, which show every gradation between 

 it and Gerdistus, Machimvs, Epitriptus, and Stilpnogaster, 

 though at the same time not agreeing exactly with any of 

 them. Under the circumstances a somewhat different sys- 

 tsm of classification of the Australian species seems to' be 

 called for. Now, when the whole of these species are con- 

 sidered, they will be found to fall into five main groups, 

 which I regard as true genera ; of thesei Ommatius, 

 Bhpharotes, and Pararatas require but short notice, as their 

 limits are well defined, and they contain only a small num- 

 ber of species. Ovimntms is distinguished at once by the 

 feathered antennal style, BJepharotes by the broad abdomen 

 with lateral tufts of hair, and Pararafus by the short and 

 thickened antennal style. AVhen, however, these three 

 genera are separated off, the great majority of the Austral- 

 ian speciesi will still remain unaccounted for. Now, these 



