NOTES ON SOME EUROPEAN SPECIES OF CALLIPHORIN.E ETC. ^*9 



I think consideiiitiou should he given to the question whether 

 P. atratiietilcD'id is not P. iicspillo with the first posterior cell closed. Also 

 to the question whether P. drpre^i^a is not a variét}^ of P. atramcittaria 

 rather than of /*. riidis. The material is too limited for me to answer these 

 questions. An al)uii(lance of fresh and perfect specimens would quickly 

 solve these ])roblems. 



Cdlliphora. — There was one specimen which 1 refer to Cdllipliora 

 antlirnchid Mkio. although it is larger than were Meigen's specimens. This 

 is very likely to be confounded with Oiir^ia iieiitilis unless one studies it 

 closely. 



LuriJia. — A few specimens must V)e referred to L. illustris Meig. 

 I doubt if this is more than a variety of L. xi/Jrarmn. If one looks over 

 the fine series of L. .'<iilvaniiu one will find that the marginal macrochaetse 

 of the second abdominal segment vary much both in size and number. Now 

 the only structural difference between ilbíMi'if; and sylvanim is that in 

 iJ]i(.<<h-is these macrochaetse are small, about equal in size and form a 

 complete row. It is true that a complete series from typical sijlvarum to 

 typical ilJustris is not found in this material and therefore I can not say that 

 my theoi'y is yet demonstrated, still, I think the tendency of the evidence 

 is in that direction. The color differences given in the published descriptions 

 and found in the specimens are unimportant. Lu cilia no hi lis Meig. is a 

 variety of sericata and not a valid species. Structurally the specimens, by 

 the way all female, do not differ from Lucilla sericata Meig. Females cor- 

 responding to L. nobilis occur in this country, especially on and near the 

 sea shore. These females couple with males of sericata and with males 

 W'hich are structurally identical but have a pollinosity like the females. 

 Prof. SxPtOBL writes me that Dr. Villeneuve considers nobilis a female 

 variety of raficeps Meig. but i do not agree with this, principally on account 

 of the difference in chistotaxy. and consider ruficeps as a variety of caesar' 



Muscinae muscseformes. 



Mcscnihrina latreillii. Desv. (This is our only known American spe- 

 cies). As far as I know it has not before been found in Europe, south of 

 Scandinavia. One specimen I refer to M. intennedia Zett. I must confess 

 I d(nil)t the validity of this species but having only one specimen and that 

 not in the best of condition I hesitate to express a 'positive opinion. 



Dasifphoi'a. — Here I have an important communication to make 

 and in regard to it I have corresponded with Prof. Mario Bezzi whose opi- 

 nion coincides with mine. Dnsi/pkora saltuuni. Kond. is a good species. It 

 is clearly distinguished from prnloruni Meig. by its smaller size, narrower 



