TACHINID^. 381 



Figs. 97, 98. ■ Plagiprospherysa valida. The parafacials are not 

 so wide below in tototypes in the National Museum. The species is 

 apparently closely allied to P. parvipalpis, but needs comparison. 



Fig. 100. Pseudohystricia ambigua, male. The genus differs from 

 Jurinella in the wider parafacials and more produced front. 



Fig. 101. Saundersia sp? Can not be a Nemorcra, which has the 

 epistoma less prominent and the face more receding and lengthened. 



Fig. 105. iftuscopteryx sp. Probably M. chcetosula. 



Fig. 106. Compared with a cotype there is a pair of short reclinate 

 fronto-orbital bristles opposite the ocellar pair, wanting in figure. 



Fig. 109. Achcetoneura archippivora, male. This is Achcetoneura 

 and not Frontina. Notes on the distinction will be published else- 

 where. 



Fig. no. Senotainia flavicornis. This is distinct from rubriventris. 



Fig. in. Gcediopsis sp? This maybe mexicana, but is not the 

 species so determined by Coquillett, which I shall describe as a new 

 genus and species, Poliophrys sierricola. 



Fig. 112. Stomatodexia analis. If Dexia analis Say is congeneric 

 with Dexia diadema Wied. and the species figured is correctly iden- 

 tified with the former, it is incorrect in having the first posterior cell 

 end so far from the wing tip. 



Fig. 113. Bombyliomyia abrupta. The arista is longer than the 

 third antennal joint. 



Fig. 114. Chcztoglossa picticornis. The figure lacks the long and 

 extremely delicate proboscis. 



National Museum, June, 1907. 



35 



