78 
PSYCHE 
June — August 
genus Chrysops cestuans V.d.W., — Walker, 1848; atrnposC. S. 
<^, — dhnsus Walker, 1848 ; fugax O. S. \?>-j ’^, — carhonarius Walker, 1848 ; 
funatus Walker, is a good species and not a syn. of striatus O. S. 
In the Strationiyidae there are the following omissions : Euparyphus major 
Hine (Ohio Nat. I., 112, igoi), and Akronia frontosa Hine (/. c. 113). Pachy- 
gaster maatliconiis Hine, belongs to the genus Noopachygaster of Austen. 
In the Bombylidae I note the absence of Sysicechus soli fits Walker, a species 
which seems to be quite distinct from vulgaris.. The name of Hyperalnnia ser- 
veillei Macquart, presents an interesting question in nomenclature, — whether 
a name based on what is apparently a recognizable figure, but without a descrip- 
tion or locality, shall be accepted. The Bomly/ius philadelphicus of the New 
Jersey list is a very different species from the B. mexica>ius Wiedeman, but 
whether it represents Macquart’s species is somewhat doubtful. 
Lestomyia fallii Coquillett, and Erax dubius Will, seem to be omitted. Erax 
albibarbis, Macq., 1839, should be the species, not dnerascens Bellardi, 1861. 
Holopogou philadelphicus Schiner, is undoubtedly a synonym of gufiula Wied. I 
only note the omission of Criorhina nigra. Will. (Synopsis, p. 214), in the Syr- 
phidae. 
A name omitted in the Dexiidae is Metadexia Jlavipes Coq. The type is in 
my collection, it has proved to be a synonym of Thelairodes basalis Giglio-Tos. 
We cannot blame the author for overlooking cepeto)um Meade, published 
under the title, “Annotated List of British Anthomyiidae,” in the Entomologist’s 
Monthly Magazine, March, 1882, p. 218, where he also refers to .American speci- 
mens received from Professor Lintner of Albany. 
I beg to differ with the author in regard to ignoring recognizable descrip- 
tions where no locality is given, noticeably, the use of Atnphicnephes pertusus Loew, 
1873, instead of pulla Wiedemann, 1830, and of Ischnomyia vittula Loew, 1863, 
in place of al bicosta Walker, 1849. Tephronota na/ytia Walker, 1849, will have 
to be adopted in place of ruji.ceps Van der Wulp, 1867, notwithstanding the fact 
that of the “four specimens in the British Museum, two of them are Chcetopsis 
cenea and that one of these bears Walker’s label, ‘Narytia’ ”, (Osten Sacken 
Cat., p. 260), the description applies very clearly to the other two, and not to 
C. ce/iea, W'ied. Sepsisoma flavescens Johnson, Tephritis nora Doane, Ophthal- 
7 tioniyia bisignata Coq., Eudicra/m obu/nbrata Loew, and jVycteribia bellardi 
Rond., seem to be omitted. Considering the amount of work involved in prepar- 
ing a catalogue of this kind, the omissions are very few and the author deserves 
all the praise it is possible to give for his careful and thorough work. C. M'. J. 
