A Monograph of Egyptian Diptcra. 93 



SYNONYMY: — I cannot do better here than give Verrall's 

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

 "difficult to absolutely limit the original formation of the genus 

 "Helophilus as now accepted. A genus Elophilus was proposed by 

 "Meigen in 1803 for "Syrphus tenax, nemorum, floreus, pendalus 

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

 "Eristalis ; but at the same time Meigen proposed a genus Helio- 

 "philus for 'Syrphus sylvarum etc. Fabr.!' In 1804 Meigen gave a 

 "most unsatisfactory distinction between Elophila with 'die Borste 

 "gefiedert" and Heliovhitus with 'die Borste einfach.' None of these 

 "names can honestly claim priority, because whichever may be 

 "considered the type species may well belong to some other very 

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

 tion of these genera in 1882 is the first firm foundation upon 

 "which we can build, and he then limited Helophilus to the group 

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

 "well distinguished the allied genera or groups of Eristalis, 

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

 "from his definitions. 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 accidental and obvious 

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

 "the time in which the practice was adopted, or else the practice 

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

 "generation, and no approximation to finality will ever occur. I 

 "therefore accept and defend the modern limitations and the 

 "present acceptation of the name of the genus Helophilus, even 

 "though I may allow that certain groups are entitled to subgeneric 

 "rank." 



The members of this genus mainly occur in marshy districts 

 and are nearly all attracted by Composites and Umbelliferce. 



Verrall says that the metamorphoses of scarcely any species 

 are known, but Meigen states that H. pendulus has been bred from 

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

 is only natural in connection with its obvious relationship to 

 Eristalis. 



l. H. (MESEMBRIUS) CAPENSIS MAC(J. 



(PI. V, fig. 5., PI. I, fig. 12 and PI. II, figs. 4, 7 and 9). 



Macq., Dipt. Exot., II. 2., 62.2. t. XL f. 3. {Helophilus) 

 (1842); Lw, Dipterenf. Sudafr., I. 313. Anmerk. 2. {Helophilus) 

 (I860); Kert., Catal. Dipteror., VII. 250. (Tubifera) (1907); Bez., 

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



