PSYCHE. 



HILARIMORPHA AND APIOCERA. 



BY SAiMUEI. WENDELL WILLISTON, NEW HAVEN, CONN. 



In the examination, recently, of a 

 small collection of Diptera sent me by 

 Mr. Charles Robertson of Carlinville, 

 Illinois, I detected several specimens,' 

 which, upon examination, proved con- 

 clusively to belong to the genus Hi- 

 larhnorpha^ whose systematic position 

 has been the subject of some discussion. 

 The two other known species, both 

 European, were first located by Schi- 

 ner, the author of the genus, in close 

 proximity to Hilar a in the family etn- 

 .pidae. Later, from a renewed study 

 of the subject, he arrived at the con- 

 clusion that they •'undoubtedly belong- 

 to the leptidae.^'' Mik, more recently 

 (Ueber die systematische Stellung des 

 Genus Hilarimorpha Schin., Verb. 

 Zool. Bot. Gesellsch. iSSi, pp. 327- 

 329), has presented cogent reasons why 

 the first location by Schiner is the cor- 

 rect one, — arguments with which, from 

 the study of the present closely allied 

 species, I fully agree. Roeder has re- 

 cently published some remarks upon 

 this subject, which I regret not to find 

 among the copies of his papers that he 

 has kindly sent me. 



Professor Mik here takes the view, I 

 may add, that a more decisive ground 



for an opinion regarding the position 

 can be expected only when the earlier 

 stages are known, which unfortunately 

 is not the case at present. Perhaps in 

 such a case as the present, where there 

 may be doubt, some important charac- 

 ters or mode of development in the im- 

 mature stages may be sufficient to de- 

 cide its position, but I am far from the 

 belief, as I have elsewhere expressed 

 myself, that characters drawn from the* 

 immature stages are of greater or even 

 equal value with those shown by the 

 adult insect. Professor Mik, with 

 Professor Brauer, is inclined, as shown 

 by his remarks in a recent number of 

 the Wiener Ent. Zeit., to subordinate 

 adult characters in classification. But, 

 notwithstanding the deservedly high 

 repute of both these eminent entomo- 

 logists, I cannot but differ with them, 

 in a measure at least. Resemblances, 

 in my opinion, are everywhere of more 

 importance than differences ; I do not 

 think it desirable to separate species or 

 genera that show important resem- 

 blances in the adult stage, no matter 

 how important may be the difl^erences 

 of larvae or pupae. The differences 

 among the earlier forms of the ceci- 



