142 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM VOL. 97 
Eudejeaniops BLANCHARD, La Plata Mus. Rev., new ser., vol. 2, pp. 353-357, 1941. 
Four species, two of them new; type by original designation, Hudejeaniops 
pseudopyrrhopoda Blanchard. New synonym (?). 
The genus was erected by Townsend (1912) for two new species 
from Peru, £. subalpina and E. nigra, the former being designated as 
genotype. Engel (1920) revised the genus, listed a number of species, 
and presented a key to seven species and four varieties, some of which 
are now referred to other genera. In 1941 Blanchard proposed the 
name Ludejeaniops for two new species plus F. pallipes (Macquart) 
and £. pyrrhopoda (Engel), distinguishing his genus from Eude- 
jeania mainly by the presence in the former of proclinate frontoorbital 
bristles in the female. 
The presence or absence of these bristles was often used by Town- 
send as an important generic character. Townsend’s conception of 
Eudejeania (1939, p. 78) was that neither sex possessed these bristles, 
which was true of the species that he designated as genotype (subal- 
pina) but not of the second species originally included (nigra). He 
stated also that the genus ranged in many species from Mexico to 
Bolivia, and he indicated that his concept included Engel’s several 
forms of pallipes. In reality, however, all the latter have proclinate 
frontoorbitals in the female sex. In fact, of all the species consid- 
ered in this study only swbalpina lacks them. 
- It is readily apparent from available material that the character 
is rather variable in this particular group. In a sample series of 25 
females of one species (aldrichi) from Bogota, 16 had two pairs of 
frontoorbitals, 3 had one pair, and 6 were asymmetrical (1 on one 
side and 2 on the other, in one individual with 3 and 2). —Two males 
were found with a fully developed bristle on one side, and one male 
with a complete pair of bristles. Similar variation has also been 
observed in the other species. In view of the considerable variation 
exhibited in the abundant material before me, therefore, I do not 
accept the character by itself as a criterion of generic value. In the 
key (p. 153) the use of the character has been avoided except as a 
last resort in one instance. 
Curran? distinguished Hudejeania from Dejeania by the lack of 
acrostichal bristles in the former, though Townsend (1939, p. 78) 
stated that one pair of presutural acrostichals was a generic char- 
acter for Hudejeania. Actually the number of both acrostichal and 
dorsocentral bristles is highly variable in this particular genus and 
cannot be relied upon. Detailed notes on this will be found under 
E. aldrichi. 
The species of Hudejeania are remarkably similar in structure and 
habitus, and it seems unnecessary to describe the species here in the 
2Families and genera of North American Diptera, p. 423, couplet 24, 1934. 
