34 Mr. C. G. Lamb on E.rotic Clilovopid^. 



available up to the dates of publication of the same, and 

 hence save much labour in searching out old records. 

 These monographs are : — 



I. Theil. Palfearctic Region. 



' Archivum Zoologiciim,' i. 1910. 



II. Theil. Ethiopic Region. 



Ann. Mus. Nat. Hung. vii. 1910. 



III. Theil. ludo-Austvalian Region. 



Ann. Mus. Nat. Bung. ix. 1911. 



IV. Theil. Nearctic Region, Neotropical Region, and Addendum. 



Ann. Mus. Nat. Hung. x. 1912. 



The last brings the list of known species in all the regions 

 up to date ; it also contains a discussion of Enderlein's new 

 genera (Sitz. d. Gesell. Nat. Freunde, 1911), and clears up 

 many points in that paper which at one time seemed likely 

 to throw the classification into confusion. 



Tliese monographs will be shortly referred to by the 

 numbers I., II., III., IV. after Becker's name. 



As is so often the case, a considerable number of single 

 specimens occur in both collections. Where the characters 

 are quite unmistakable and striking, tliese single specimens 

 have been described as the types of new species. When the 

 specimen agrees with fair accuracy with any published 

 description, it has been thought best to place the insect 

 under the existing name ; but in general it will be found 

 that this fact is referred to, and any differences recorded. 



The Chloropidae form a very protean family and include 

 great numbers of genera that run fairly closely into one 

 another. It might be said that almost every positive 

 character which limits the family may be separately absent 

 in some genera — in fact, the allocation of au insect to the 

 family is in many cases practically due to a " trained eye," 

 and cannot be logically justified by the limits of the defini- 

 tions of the family. This is possibly more true of this 

 family than of any of the other Acalyptrate groups. 



It naturally results that the generic limitations follow the 

 same tendency, and that the original limits of a genus, as 

 set by its founder, have to be transgressed, so that finally 

 the "genus" sometimes bears little resemblance to the 

 limited form originally prescribed. A good example of this 

 is to compare Gaurax as founded by Li;ew with Becker's 

 latest concept of the species forming that assemblage. 



