256 



PSYCHE. 



[August--Deceinber 18S9. 



he adds a short style to the antennae, of 

 which he says nothing in the descrip- 

 tion, and which does not in realit}'' 

 exist. Now this peculiar structure of 

 the antennae was what Schiner empha- 

 sized as the characteristic of Lochites. 

 The narrowing of the base of the abdo- 

 men in Macquart's analis is slight, and 

 but little more than occurs in some of 

 Schiner's species. Not only are the 

 genera the same, but I am not sure but 

 that some of Macquart's and Schiner's 

 species may be. Several species that 

 I have examined convince me that the 

 narrowing of the ijbdomen at the base 

 is a very trivial character. Schiner re- 

 ferred to Senobasis the specits of 

 Blepharepium., with an elliptical third 

 antennal joint, forms totally different. 

 Bigot seems equally to have misunder- 

 stood the genus, which perhaps is not 

 strange. I^ochites must therefore be 

 dropped, which is all the more neces- 

 sary from the fact that the name was 

 twice used before Schiner's. I leave 

 to the purist the emendation of the name 

 Senobasis. 



The species from Noi th America re- 

 ferred by me to Aphamartania Schiner, 

 does not belong there, as true specimens 

 of the genus prove ; where it does be- 

 long I do not know. 



' In the collection are specimens of a 

 Deromyia closely resembling D. mis- 

 el his from North America, with the 

 fourth posterior cell closed. Baron 

 Osten Sacken (Biol. Centr. Amer. 173) 

 refuses to accept the identity of Diog- 

 m-tes and Deromyia., or, accepting it, 

 woidd place the latter as a svnonym or 



subgenus of the former. I cannot agree 

 with him. Philippi's description was 

 as good as Loew's and a year earlier. I 

 can see no reason whatever for rejecting 

 Philippi's name, and, until further evi- 

 dence from Philippi's type species is at 

 hand, the name Diogtnites should be 

 dropped. 



Schiner located the genus Pseudoriis 

 Walker under the dasypogoiiiitae., and 

 attributed to it three submai-ginal cells, 

 expressly stating that he had examined 

 two specimens. A specimen that 1 have 

 examined, and which I believe to be P. 

 piceus Walker, has the marginal cell 

 closed and with but two submarginal 

 cells, agreeing in both respects with P. 

 bicolor Bellardi. The genus is closely 

 allied to Dorycius Jaenn. 



Mr. Roeder has recently (Berl. ent. 

 zeit. V. 21, 76) fully discussed the 

 synonymy of Dorychis and Megapoda 

 Macq., distinguishing them as genera, 

 and clearing up the confusion of the 

 species. Specimens of the two type 

 species, Doryclus distcndeiis (Wied.) 

 Jaenn. and Megapoda lahiata (Fabr. ) 

 Macq., convince me that he is quite 

 right in separating the forms. Xot 

 only the characters of the legs, but the 

 general habitus also, and the form of the 

 face, are fully sufficient, in my opinion, 

 to distinguish them. Pseitdorus exists 

 with less right than does Doryclus it 

 seems to me. There is considerable va- 

 riation in the three specimens I have 

 examined, both male and female, of 

 D. distendens., so that I am not pre- 

 pared to say that the specific synonym v 

 is correctly given by Roeder, but it 



