On a neio Genus of Blcpluiroctrid Flies. 203 



Botli vviiio's orannre-yellow, tlie secondaries not so bright as 

 tiie primaries, both having a broad outer margin of" neutral- 

 grey, taj)eriiig somewhat narrower at the tornus. 



Exj)anse 50 nnn. 



Hah, Lagos, West Africa ; December 8th. 



Type in the Oxford Museum. 



XXVI. — On Elporia, a new Genus of Blepliarocericl Flies 

 from South Africa. By F. W. Edwards, B.A., F.E.S. 



(Published by permission of the Trustees of the Britisli Museum.) 



In the 'Annals and Magazine of Natural History ' for June 

 1912, I described under the name Kdloggina hamardi the 

 only species of Blepharoceridai which has yet been recorded 

 for the Ethiopian region. At the time of writing, the insect 

 appeared to me to possess all .the main characters of the 

 genus Kellof/gina, bat, as will now be shown, the South 

 African species must be excluded from that genus on account 

 of an important difference in the structure of the eyes. 



I was led to make a more careful examination of K. bar- 

 nardi, on account of a suggestion made by Prof. M. Bezzi, 

 in his paper " Blefaroceridi Italiani " (1913), that the larva) 

 described as K. hamardi did not belong to tlie same species 

 as the adults, as these larva) appeared to him to be related to 

 Blepharocera *. The specimens on which the original 

 description of K. hamardi was founded, being for the most 

 part newly hatched, were somewhat shrivelled, and, under 

 a dissecting-microscope, there was no evidence of any 

 division of the eyes into two portions, as in many genera of 

 this family. Tliis was only what was to be expected, as the 

 wing-venation of the new species was practically identical 

 with that of Kelloggina and Faltostomo, tlie latter of which 

 at least undoubtedly has simple eyes. Wiien, however, 

 specimens of K. hamardi were boiled in potash, it was at 

 once evident that the eyes were very distinctly divided into 

 u{)per and lower portions f, although, as there was very little 

 difference in the size of tlie facets of the u})per and lower 

 portions, it was only when the eyes were unshrunken that 



* As has recently been shown by Seott, this suLigestion was un- 

 founded. 



t Scott has recently stated that tlie contrary is the case, hut his 

 observation was made on a badly-mounted specimen. 



'15* 



