440 ]\Ir. E. E. Austen on a new 



In oreneral appearance and form of body similar to Stomoxys, 

 but in sliape of proboscis and palpi resembling Hcematohia, 

 though with arista feathered only on upper side, as in Sto- 

 mo.Ti/s and Lyperosia. — Head somewhat flattened from front 

 to rear, with basioccipital region only slightly swollen; pro- 

 boscis short, stout, and shining, of uniform thickness through- 

 out, not tapering to the tip, chitinous, but terminated by a 

 pair of small fleshy labella ; palpi equal to proboscis in 

 length, large, clavate towards the tips, curving upwards, and 

 ■with stout bristles on the outer side at the distal extremity. 



Bristles of thorax: — Humeral,?). Post-humeral, 1. Noto- 

 2?leural, 2. Pra'sutural, 1. Supra-alar, 1. Intra-alar, 1. 

 Post-alar, 2. Dorso-central, 6 (1 in front of and 5 behind 

 the sutuie). Inner dorso-central, 1. Scutellar, 4 (1 prse- 

 basal, 1 basal, 1 discal, 1 apical) *. Mesopleural, 9 or 10, 

 wider apart than in Stomoxys or Ilwmatohia. Sternopleural, 1 

 (posterior, as in Stomoa-ys, instead of 1 : 1, as in Hamatobia). 



Wings with first josterior cell narrowly open at the tip, 

 the witlth of the opening being precisely that seen in the same 

 cell in the wing of Musca corvina, Fabr., and less than half 



der Palaailitisclien Dipteren,' Bd. iii.), in trausferring to this genus, from 

 its time-honoured position among the Tachininse, Meigen's name Siphona. 

 So far from Meigen's diagnosis, published in 1803 (Illiger's ' Magazia fiir 

 Insektenkvmde,' Bd. ii. p. '26\), applying just as well to Haimitobia, liob.- 

 Desv., as to Bucentes, Latr. { = Sip/iona, Mg., Syst. Beschr. iv. (1824), 

 p. 154, et nuct.), as erroneously asserted by Speiser, the statements con- 

 cerning the bare arista and " gebrochen " proboscis show that it does 

 nothing of the kind. On the contrary, it must be evident to any unbiassed 

 investigator that, when writing his diagnosis of 1803, Meigen had in view 

 identically the same genus as that subsequently characterized by him in 

 greater detail in the volume of the ' Systematische Beschreibuug ' pub- 

 lished in 1824, and illustrated in tab. xxxvii. of that work, figs. 18-25. 

 Strangely enough, in view of the course that he has seen fit to adopt, this 

 contention is actually advanced by Bezzi (he. cit. pp. 17-18, sep. imp.) ! 

 In dealing his perfectly gratuitous blow at the stability of Muscid nomen- 

 clature, Speiser relies chiefly on the fact that Meigen appended to his 

 1803 diagnosis of tSipkona, as " type " or " example," the name " Stonways 

 irrituns, Fabr.," which is now admitted to be a synonym of Hcematubm 

 {Sto7}ioxys) stimulans, Mg. This argument, however, goes for naught in 

 view of the statements in the diagnosis itself, to which attention has 

 already been drawn ; and, as Bezzi remarks [loc. cit. p. 18, sep. imp.), 

 there appears to have been some mistake as regards the species given as 

 the type of the genus Siphona. It may well be that " irritans,^' Fabi-., 

 was simply a kq^sus calami for " mimda" Fabr., since in Syst. Beschr. iv. 

 p. 155, Stomoxys minuta, Fabr., is given by Meigen himself as a synonym 

 of Siphvtia (Musca) yent'culata, Deg., the species which there follows 

 immediately after the detailed description of the genus Siphona. 



* For the nomenclature of the bristles of the scutellum, cf. Girschner, 

 " Ueber die Scutellarbeborstung der Musciden," Wiener entomologische 

 Zeitung, xx. Jahrg. (1901), pp. 71-72, Taf. i. figs. 4-7. 



