A Monografh of Egyplian Dïplera. 93 



ïiYNO^\MY:—\ cannot do hettcr liei'e thaii givc VerraU's 

 opinion which is as follows "As is the case in most old gênera it is 

 "difficult to absolutely liniit tlie original formation of the genus 

 ''Relofhilus as now accepted. A genus Eloyhilus was proposed by 

 "Meigen in 1803 for "Syi-phus tenax, nemorum, floreiis, prndiilvtt 

 "etc. Fabr." which might appear to be prior to and identical with 

 ''Eristalis ; but at the same time Meigen proposée! a genus Helio- 

 "pMlus for 'Syrphus sylvarum etc. Fahr.!' In 1804 Meigen gave a, 

 "most unsatisfactory distinction between Flophila witli 'die Borsts^ 

 "gefiedert" and Heliophilus with 'die Borste einfach.' None of thesi; 

 "names can honestly claim priority, because whichever may bo 

 "considered the type species may well belong to some other ver}- 

 "distinct species and consequently in my opinion Meigen's limita- 

 "tion of thèse gênera in 1882 is the first firm foundation upon 

 "which we can buihi, and he then limited II do pli 'dus to the group 

 "which is now included under that name and at the same time ho 

 "well distinguished the allied gênera or groups of Frisfalis-, 

 "Mallota and Merodon, and I cannot see any reason for differing 

 "from his définitions. It is quite certain that we are not justified 

 "in applying laws of priority now which were not then recognised, 

 "unless they were unrecognised, admitted, or accidentai and obvions 

 "synonyms. We ought, as far as possible, to accept the practice of 

 "the time in which the practice was adopted, or else the practic(> 

 "which we adopt now is almost certain to be upset by the next 

 "génération, and no approximation to finality will ever occur. 1 

 "therefore accept and défend the modem limitations and tho 

 "présent acceptation of the name of tlie genus Helophiii/s, even 

 "though I may allow that certain groups arc entitkd to sul)generic 

 "rank." 



The members of tliis genus mainly occur in uiarsliy districts 

 and are nearly ail attracted l)y Coin imsihr aiid VmhcUiferœ. 



Verrall says that the métamorphoses of scarcely any species 

 are known, but Meigen states that H. pendulns bas been bred from 

 putrid water, which quite agrées with the habits of the species and 

 is only natural in connection with its obvions relationshlp to 

 Eristalis. 



1. H. (\1ESEMBRIUS) CAPENSIS MAC<}. 



(PI. V, fig. 5.. PI. I, fig. 12 and PI. II, figs. 4, V and 9). 



Macq., Dipt. Exot., II. 2., 62.2. t. XL f. 3. [Ildophilus) 

 a842); Lw., Dipterenf. Siidafr., I. 313. Amnerk. 2. (Helopkilus) 

 (1860); Kert., Catal. Dipteror., VII. 250. (Tubifera) (1907); Bez., 

 Syrph. Ethiop. Région, 95.97. (1915). 



