378 Mr. F. W. Edwards’ Notes on British Mycetophilidae. 
*M. guttata, Dz. Lodore (G.H.V.); Tottington (J.W.Y.). 
Felden (A.P.); Crowborough (F.J.); New Forest (D.8.). 
M. signata, Mg. (Dz.). I have only seen two males of 
this species, from Crowborough (F.J.) and Westhide 
(J.H.W.). The females of the szgnata group seem to be 
indistinguishable. 
M. rufescens, Zett. (= ornata, Stph.). This is the 
largest species of the genus here, and one of the most 
distinct, the only species which at all resembles it being 
M. cingulum. It is not uncommon. Stephens gave an 
excellent figure, the plate on which it appears bearing the 
inscription “ London, published by J. F. Stephens, 30th 
April, 1832.” The name of the species, however, does not 
appear on the plate, and his description did not appear 
till 1846; meanwhile, Zetterstedt had published his 
M. rufescens (1838). The M. lutescens of the British List 
is most likely this species. 
*M.rudis, Winn. New Forest, 1 ¢29(D.S8.); Sheviock, 
13 (J.W.Y.). These specimens agree very nearly with 
Winnertz’s description, but in none of them does the pre- 
apical wing-fascia reach the costa, a remarkable cha- 
racter by which, if it were constant, the species might easily 
be recognised. The dark markings of the thorax occupy 
the greater part of the surface of the mesonotum, leaving 
only two rather large shoulder patches and three smaller 
patches in front of the scutellum yellow. The black 
colour extends to the front margin in the middle. The 
hypopygium (figs. 81 and 82) appears small in the dried 
specimens, being almost retracted, but in reality it is 
quite large; Winnertz’s description does not fit well, but 
descriptions of this organ are apt to be misleading. Apart 
from these poimts there is no disagreement between our 
specimens and the description of M. rudis. Dr. H. Dzie- 
dzicki very kindly sent me a specimen which he had com- 
pared with Winnertz’s type; it is identical in all respects 
with ours. 
*M. russata, Dz. New Forest (D.S.); Henley-on- 
Thames, bred from Polystictus versicolor (H.8.); Felden 
(A.P.); Wormsley, Suffolk (G.H.V.). All the specimens 
(about a dozen) have a distinct blotch in the anal cell, not 
mentioned by the describer, while the front tarsi of the 
male are not thickened, as they were in Dziedzicki’s 
single specimen. The hypopygium agrees very closely 
with the figure. 
