of the Family Tabanidse. lOi 



is not exact. The specimen in the Museum came from 

 South Africa, not Oceania, whence Macquart says his type 

 was received. 



Hah. South Africa (Smith). 



*Cadicera melanopyga, (^ , Wiedem., Auss. zweifl. Ins. i. 

 p. 98(1828). 



Pangonia melanopyga, Wiedem., I.e.; $ , Macq. Dipt, Exot. i. p. 97 

 (1838) ; Loew, Dipt. Siidafrik. p. 19 (1860) ; Walker, List Dipt. pt. i. 

 p. 136 (1848). 



Hah. Cape of Good Hope {Smith, Whitehill). 



*Gadicera crassipalpis, Macq. Dipt. Exot. i. p. 98 (1838). 

 Pangonia (yrassipalpis, Macq., I.e. ; Walker, List Dipt. pt. i. p. 138 (1848). 

 Hah. Cape of Good Hope (Children). 



*Cadicera chrysostigma, Wiedem., Auss. zweiti. Ins. i. p. 100 

 (1828). 



Pangonia chrysostigma, AViedem., I. c. ; Walker, List Dipt. pt. v. 

 Suppl. 1, p. 137. 



Hih. Cape of Good Hope, Stellenbosch {Vigors). 



There is an undescribed specimen in the collection un- 

 labelled, which probably belongs to this genus, from the 

 Cape ', and another probably new species from Pirie Bush. 



Pelecoehynchus, Macq. 



Pelecorhgnchiis, Macq., Dipt. Exot. Suppl. 4, p. 28 (1850) ; Loew, 



Dipt. Siidafrik. (1860). 

 Ccenopngf/a, Thorns., Eugeii. Resa, p. 449 (1868). 

 '" '^^ . '" ■'--' ' ■ ' '\' > '-''/■ 



This genus was formed by Macquart for P. maculipennis 



from Australia ; he distinguished the genus from Pangonia by 

 the peculiar shape of the proboscis, which ends in the form of 

 a hatchet : Loew is doubtful as to this being a good character- 

 istic for a genus, though Schiner, in describing P. ornatus 

 (' Reise der Novara,' p. 98), mentions this as justifying the 

 genus being established ; it seems peculiar to the genus so far 

 as I can judge from the species in the Museum. Thomson 

 formed a new genus, Ccenopnyga, for the same species, dis- 

 tinguishing it from Pangonia by its subulated antennaj and 

 the posterior spiracles being ovate not horizontal. Macquart's 

 name has priority, though he gives an insufficient and in- 

 correct description for his genus. Thomson's should be referred 

 to : his statement " wings many-spotted " will only hold good 

 for some species, not for the genus, some having quite clear 

 wings ; his distinction as to spiracles I have not been able to 



