358 Mr. F. W. Edwards’ Notes on British Mycetophilidae. 
Sciphila. The subcostal cross-vein + is situated at about 
the middle of the small cell, which is not normally the case 
in any other species I have seen. Hypopygium, figs. 
48-50. I have seen two males, one from West Woodhay 
(F.J.), the other from New Forest (D.S.); a third in the 
Clifton collection in the British Museum seems to be a 
variety of this species (see fig. 50). 
*S. nigra, Landrock. Lochinver, and Aldburgh (J.W.Y.) 
Blairgowrie (A.E.J.C.); New Forest (D.S.); Dyffryn 
(G.H.V.); Stoke Wood (J.H.W.). This may be a variety 
of Winnertz’s L. nitens with the hind femora partly 
yellowish. 
*S. varia, Winn. Logie, 1g 19 (F.J.). Hypopygium, 
figs. 51 and 52. 
*§. sharpi, sp. n.d 
Nigra, subnitida, robusta; S. hirtae similis, differt magnitudine et 
hy popygio. 
Head, thorax and abdomen black, rather shining, with yellow 
pubescence. Palpi, two basal joints of antennae, prothoracic lobes, 
coxae, femora, tibiae and halteres yellowish, tarsi and extreme tip 
of hind tibiae dark. Wings subhyaline, veins dark; subcostal 
cross-vein placed more basally than the small cell which is practi- 
cally square; costa reaching only a small distance beyond the tip 
of the first longitudinal vein; upper fork nearly sessile; axillary 
vein strong, reaching a little beyond the base of the lower fork. 
Genitalia, figs. 54 and 55. Length 6 mm. A large species, about 
the size of L. rufwm. 
A single male from Nethy Bridge, Inverness, July 1910 
(D. Sharp). 
*S. interrupta, Winn. Lyndhurst (G.H.V.); Mildenhall 
(J.W.Y.). Dr. H. Dziedzicki very kindly sent me copies 
of his drawings of the hypopygium of Winnertz’s type; 
these showed some slight differences from those here given, 
figs. 44 and 45; not greater, however, than between the two 
specimens of JS. fenestella figured. The two hairs on the 
dorsal plate of Winnertz’s specimen are much shorter and 
thicker. 
*S. geniculata, Zett. One male from Whiting Bay, 
Arran (Rev. J. Waterston), presented to the British 
+ Walker’s statement (Ins. Brit. III. p. 42) that the “subcostal 
vein is not connected with the radial” is in direct disagreement 
with Curtis’ figure. 
