242 Forty-fourth Report on the State Museum 



Phytomyza chrysanthemi n. sp. Kowarz. 



The Chrysanthemum Fly. 

 (Ord. Diptera: Fam. Phytomyzid^.) 



Phytomyza lateralis. Lintneb : 4th Eept. Ins. N. Y., 1888, pp. 73-79, figs. 31, 32. 

 Not Phijtomyza lateralis of Fallen, Meigen, Curtis, et al. 

 Phytomyza affinis. Falconer : in Amer. Florist, ii, 1887, p. 297. 

 Phytomyza chrysanthemi Kowarz MS. Jack: in Garden and Forest, iii, 



1890, p. 440, figs. 55/./. g. 

 Phytomyza ?nigricorrds. Westwood: in Gardeners' Chronicle, May 12, 



1883, p. 593. 



A somewhat extended notice of the destructive leaf-miner of 

 Chrysanthemums, Eupatoriums, Cinerarias, etc., the injurious char- 

 acter of which has drawn considerable attention to it during recent 

 years, was given in the Fourth Report on the Insects of New York, 1888, 

 under the name of the Marguerite Fly — Phytomyza lateralis Fallen, it 

 having been identified with the European species of that name by 

 Baron Osten Sacken, to whom examples had been sent. 



The Marguerite Fly not Phytomyza lateralis. 



Subsequently, other examples of a Phytomyza found mining Chrys- 

 anthemums and other plants in the vicinity of Boston by Mr. J. G. 

 Jack, and believed by him to be the P. nigricorris of Macquart, were 

 submitted to Baron Osten Sacken for his determination. Early in the 

 present year, Baron Osten Sacken informed me of the sending and 

 reception of the above, and that their examination showed them to be, 

 in all probability, of the same species received from me a few years 

 ago, and which he had identified for me as Phytomyza lateralis Fallen. 

 He further stated: " I am very sorry to acknowledge that I must have 

 misled you in this case by a wrong determination. I do not 

 remember now under what circumstances I committed that blunder 

 and what prevented me from sending the specimens to Kowarz. 

 Both species are very much alike, and the Entomologist Boie com- 

 mitted the same mistake (see Schiner, Fauna, ii, p. 316, foot-note). 

 But I should have noticed that the one was bred from the heads 

 of Gompositce and the other from the leaves. No wonder that I found 

 some of the statements of Curtis misleading." 



A wrong determination by the distinguished European dipterist is 

 of so rare occurrence that, without awaiting his permission, we pub- 

 lish the above explanation, relying upon his well-known readiness tq 

 acknowledge and correct any error accidentally made. 



