240 Miss G. Ricardo on the Asilidee. 
follows :—‘ Shining black with a close and very long, chiefiy 
black pubescence, the upper lamelle are rather short and 
stout, and have between them an erect slender organ, which 
is white-haired at the end; the under lamellz are con- 
siderably longer and end in a pair of long and pointed 
curved spines.”’ 
Dysmachus auribarbis, Macq. 
Dipt. Exot. i, (2), p. 242 (1888) ; Schiner, Verh, zool.-bot. Ges. 
Wien, xviii. p. 400, 102 [ Lophonotus] (1867). 
Dysmachus chalcogaster, Loew (nec Wied.), Dipt. Siidafrik. i. p. 152 
[ Lophonotus | (1860). 
2 Dysmachus pheax, Walk. List Dipt. Brit. Mus. ii. p. 412 [Lopho- 
notus | (1849). 
In Brit. Mus. Coll. are male and female from Cape 
Colony, a female from Cape Town, Lx, 1904s oe a 
Barnard), 1914, 15; another from Simons Town (P. de la 
Garde), 96, 2, Oct. 1893. In Cape Coll. a male and female 
in coitu from Matroosberg, males from Cape Town (Perin- 
guez), Simons Town (P. de la Garde), and females from 
Hex River and Stellenbosch. These specimens vary very 
much in size from 17-25 mm. 
The moustache is black and white, and the mane black 
with many outstanding bristles, a few scattered white hairs 
are discernible posteriorly, but not forming a white stripe. 
Scutellum with black long bristles on posterior border. 
Legs bronze-coloured, with tibie largely reddish brown on 
upper sides and tarsi chiefly reddish. Specimens measure, 
g 14-18, 9 15-16 mm. 
This species, originally described by Macquart, has been 
further described by Schiner in ‘ Novara Reise,’ Dipt. p. 186 
| Lophonotus| (1868). 
He distinguishes it from D. chalcogaster, Wied., by the 
wholly yellow moustache, by its darker colouring, and, above 
all, by its genitalia ; the forceps are bifid as in D. chaleo- 
gaster, but the upper arm of fork is very slender and 
pointed, the under arm thicker and longer, ending in a 
curved point, with a row of short bristles below, reaching an 
obtuse tooth, the part from the base to the above-mentioned 
tooth is considerably longer than in the Wiedemann species. 
He considers Loew erred in making it a synonym of 
D. chalcogaster, and suggests Loew's description of a speci- 
men he calls D. chalcogaster applies to D. auribarbis, 
Macq.; he suggests Loew’s D. cupreus, a 3, is the same as 
D. chalcogaster.. 
