Mr. F. W. Edwards’ Notes on British Mycetophilidae. 379 
*M. luteicauda, sp. n. 
M. xanthopygae similis, differt hypopygio. 
This species answers almost exactly to Winnertz’s description 
of M. xanthopyga, and at first I had no hesitation in so naming it, 
Dr. H. Dziedzicki, however, has very kindly sent me drawings of 
the hypopygium of Winnertz’s type of M. xanthopyga, which prove 
that the two insects are not the same. 
In our species the median ocellus is distinct; the scutellum is 
entirely black; the abdomen is all black except the hypopygium, 
which is yellow; the branches of the fourth vein are indented 
downwards before the middle; the base of the fork of the fifth vein 
is considerably posterior to that of the fourth; the hind tibiae, 
though thickened apically, are not curved. For the rest the insect 
resembles M. xanthopyga. Hypopygium, figs. 77 and 78. 
Described from one male from Crowborough Warren, 
7. viii. 1906 (F.J.) (type—in Cambridge Museum); two 
other males from Colwich Park, Staffs. (G.H.V.), and a 
fourth from the New Forest (D.8.). 
*OPISTHOLOBA, Mik. 
*O. caudata, Staeg. Grantown-on-Spey, 17. vii. 1912, 
12 (J.W.Y.); Logie, 27. viii. 1909, 12 and 29. ix. 1910, 19° 
(F.J.). These specimens diverge from Mik’s figure in that 
the branches of the fourth vein are scarcely curved. In 
one from Logie the dorsum of the abdomen is entirely 
dark, but the others are more normal in having the fifth 
and sixth segments dorsally mainly yellow. The abdomen 
is flattened dorsally, not laterally as in most species of 
Mycetophila. The distinction between the two genera, 
however, is a very slender one. 
Corpyta, Mg. 
*C_ mtens, Winn. The species which I have determined 
as CU. nitens seems to be fairly common in the New Forest 
(D.S., C.G.L., F.J., J.W.Y.) and has also been taken at 
Logie and Crowborough (F.J.), and Stoke Wood (J.H.W.). 
It agrees well with Winnertz’s description, except that the 
antennae of the male are 14-, not 16-jointed. I have 
examined a number of specimens, which agree so well in 
general with Winnertz’s description that it seems possible 
he may have been mistaken as to the number of antennal 
