1918] Aldrich—N otes on Diptera 31 
began in 1904, there was no such opportunity for the flies to be 
carried, as the trains did not run close enough to the water. 
That the species is not indigenous to San Francisco Bay is fairly 
well demonstrated by the following facts: (1) It was not in the 
Stanford University collection, which is rich in local Diptera, the 
accumulations of many years, and is only about 23 miles from the 
place where I recently found the species; (2) It is not in the col- 
lection of the University of California, although a few years ago 
an advanced student, Burle R. Jones, made and published a special 
study of California Ephydride, for which he collected extensively 
about the Bay (Catalogue of the Ephydride, ete. Technical 
Bull., Cal. Agr. Exp. Station, 1908); (3) It is not in the collection 
of the California Academy of Sciences, nor was it in the old col- 
lection destroyed by fire in 1906, as I personally know from exam- 
ination; (4) In 1905-6 I collected repeatedly along the Bay near 
Palo Alto, and visited the same place again once in 1911, without 
finding the species. 
As a matter of fact, up to the present report there have been 
only about half a dozen specimens of the species ever found away 
from Great Salt Lake; these are from Yuma and Salton Sea in the 
National Museum, one from Laguna, Cal., taken by C. F. Baker, 
and one from “‘S. Cal.” which Jones made the type of Ephydra 
cinerea. The last two, which I have studied, are larger than the 
average but not larger than the largest specimens from Great 
Salt Lake. and the same is true of the 18 specimens I secured near 
Palo Alto last summer. This perhaps indicates that the extreme 
density of the water in Great Salt Lake exercises a dwarfing in- 
fluence upon the species. 
(b) When Van der Wulp described Charadrella macrosoma new 
genus and species, from Northern Yucatan (Biologia Cent.-Amer., 
Dipt., 11, 341, 1896), he added the following note: 
‘As the fourth vein is not curved, but runs directly to the tip of 
the wing, this genus is included here among the Anthomyine; 
on account, however, of the presence of a perpendicular row of 
macrochaetz on the hypopleurz, before the halteres, it would not 
belong to the Anthomyine in the sense of Girschner’s system of the 
Muscide Calyptere.”’ 
An Anthomyid with hypopleural bristles would be anomalous 
indeed, and I have long desired to see the species. The desire was 
