SYSTEMATIC ACCOUNT. 5a 
and one from Eritrea (Africa). I am unable to agree with him as to the advisability of 
separating Curtonotum and Diplocentra. The character given (number and distribution of 
sternopleurals) seems too trivial and variable to furnish a natural or convenient generic 
separation. Even if the separation is accepted, the use of Diplocentra as a name is not 
correct. Since it was proposed as a change of name for Curtonolum (because of a sup- 
posed preoccupation) it must necessarily have the same type species—and under no cir- 
cumstances can both names be valid. Enderlein makes his new species tumidum the type 
of Curtonotum, on the grounds that it was the form seen by Macquart, who identified it 
as Musca gibba Fabricius. I am unable to agree with the contention that this invalidates 
gibba as the type species. 
Enderlein assigns the group to the “ Ephydride,” as a separate subfamily, This 
treatment has certain points in its favor, and may be accepted or not, according to per- 
sonal preferences. 
Apsinota van der Wulp. 1887. Tijd. v. Ent., 30, 178. 
This genus was described by van der Wulp as a geomyzid, and was also 
referred to that group by de Meijere. Van der Wulp, however, states that 
the genus is near Diplocentra (= Curtonotum), and that genus has been 
referred to the Geomyzine by Loew, Osten Sacken, and others. Until 
data with regard to the costal breaks and other characters are available, 
it seems best to place Apsinota among the Drosophiline, next to Curtonotum. 
Like Curtonotum, it differs from typical Drosophiline in having a well-developed auxiliary 
vein. It also agrees with that genus in having a plumose arista, prescutellars present, 
bristly mesopleure, preapicals on all tibize, discal and second basal cells confluent, and 
strongly convex mesonotum. It differs from Curtonotum in having small postverticals, 
large carina, costa not pectinate, only one (reclinate) large orbital, and no large vibrisse. 
The last two characters are aberrant in the subfamily. 
Two species have been described: A. pictiventris van der Wulp, the type 
of the genus, from Java (van der Wulp and de Meijere) and New Guinea 
(Kertész), and A. obscuripes de Meijere, from Java. 
Thaumastophila Hendel (1914, Suppl. ent., 3, 112) differs from Apsinota 
in that the front of the male is very much narrowed. ‘The posterior scutellar 
bristles are divergent, which is apparently not the case in the described 
species of Apsinota. The only known species is T. hyalipennis Hendel, 
from Formosa. In the key to genera (p. 50) and in the discussion of 
distribution (p. 115) I have included this form under Apsinota. Further 
study may warrant its separation. 
Titanocheta Knab. 1914. Imsec. Inscit. Menstr., 2, 168. 
This genus suggests the Ephydrine in that-it has a pectinate arista; flattened, weakly 
carinate face; head and thorax pruinose. It has, however, well-developed anal cell and 
vein, and large vibrissx, so is perhaps most conveniently left here. It also has the following 
characters: three orbitals, disposed as usual; postverticals long, crossed; ocellars large; 
eyes hairy; no prescutellars; two notopleurals; two large dorsocentrals; two pairs of 
scutellars, posterior ones crossed; two sternopleurals; preapicals on all tibiz, apicals on 
second; auxiliary vein rudimentary; costa to tip of fourth vein. 
The only described species is Titanocheta ichnewmon Knab, from Hawaii. 
The specimens were reared from spider eggs. I have examined the types. 
Cladocheta Coquillett. 1900. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 22, 263. 
Arista with a single long branch above; second orbital minute, a hair between upper 
orbital and vertex; ocellars present; postverticals small, convergent; one vibrissa; one 
humeral; one presutural; two notopleurals; two supra-alars; two postalars; two dorso- 
centrals; two pairs of scutellars; no prescutellars; acrostichal hairs in six rows; one sterno- 
pleural; no propleural; apical and preapical bristles on first and second tibie, preapicals 
on third; eyes bare. 
