On some supposed neto Species of Earth to or ms. 387 



"While this paper lias hcen passinj^ through the press, 

 Mr. Mitchell has returned to Knglaiul, and has re-examine(l 

 the speeiaiens of Deuterophlehia. He was able to recall some 

 of the circumstances of tlieir capture, and adds the following 

 note on the exact locality where they were found : — 



"These flies were found floating on the edire of Lake 

 Gungabal, which tliere has a rocky shore. Close to the 

 outlet-stream the lake is H./OCy above sea-level, and lies 

 close under the glaciers of Hurramukh, which rises to nearly 

 IZjOOCy, say 5000' above the surface of the lake. The stream 

 from the lake descends the Wangat Valley, and joins the 

 Siud River, an affluent of the Jhelum.'' 



EXl'LAXATION OF TLATE VI. 



Deuterophlehia mirahilis, gen. et sp. n., J . 



Fig.\. Head and bases of antennae, x 30. (Balsam mount.) 



Fifj. 2. Head from beneath, showing mouth-opening, x 80, 



Fig. 3. Ba.se of flagellum of antennae, showing enlargements on first three 



segments, x 80. 

 Fig. 4. Wing, mounted dn-, X 9. Showing the regular fan-like 



arrangement of folds. (Costa slightly folded under towards 



base.) 

 Fig. 5. Wing, mounted in balsam, x 9. Showing traces of true venation. 



(The apparent distinctness of Sc and R^ is partly due to this 



region not being quite flat.) 

 Fig. Q. Biise of wing, x 30. Showing sclerites of attachment. 

 Fig. 7. Tip of tarsus, x 180. Showing claw and empodium. 

 Fig. 8. Tip of abdomen, x 80. 



XLVI I. — A Note on some supposed new Species ofEaitlncorms 

 of (he Genus Glyphidrilus. By J. STEPHENSON, M.B., 

 D.Sc, Lecturer in Zoology, University of Edinburgh. 



In a recent number of this Jonntal (ser. 9, vol. ix. no. 49, 

 Jan. 1922, pp. 51-68), Mr. C. R. X. Rao, of the University 

 of Mysnre, describes tour new specie.s of Gl>/phidrilus. Aa 

 on a former occasion (Kao, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 9, 

 vol. viii. no. 47, Nov. 1921 ; Stephenson, Afin. &. Mag. Nat. 

 Hist. ser. 9, vol. ix. no. 49, Jan. 1922), the de.'cr'iptions 

 appeared to me to be mistaken in many points ; besides, one 

 of the four .species seemed to be identical with Glyphi- 

 drilus annand'dei, Mich., and anotiier probably so, while the 

 two remaining species were obviously immature, and in all 

 likelihood also belonged to G. annandcdei. I therefore 



