424 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. [April, 



genera. In my description of the species the face is, incor- 

 rectly described as not descending below the corners of the 

 ej^es, a statement which is contradicted by my figures. Mik 

 is in error in giving four instead of six scutellar bristles in his 

 succinct generic aAd ver>' detailed specific diagnoses. 



The other species described by me as Drepanomyia pi'uniosa 

 was unknown to Mik and is undoubtedly new. It must now 

 be known as Hypocharasstis pruiiiosus. It is the more striking 

 of the two species, as the peculiar lobe-like projection on the 

 base of the third antennal joint is very prominent. This 

 species, too, was described from a single male specimen from 

 Florida. During the past summer while collecting diptera at 

 Woods Holl, Mass. , I was fortunate enough to encounter both 

 sexes of this remarkable fly in considerable numbers, so that I 

 am able to add some data on the hitherto unknown female of 

 Hypocharassus and on the habits of one of the species. 



Mik predicted that the female would differ very slightly from 

 the male, and such proves to be the case. In H. pruniosus 

 there is no difference in the size and structure of the antennae. 

 The fore pulvilli are somewhat larger in the male than the mid- 

 dle and hind pairs ; in the female all the pulvilli are of about 

 the same size. In the coloring of the legs, however, there is 

 marked .sexual difference ; all the femora in the females in my 

 posses.sion (seven .specimens) being yellow, whereas the three 

 males captured during the past summer and the type of the 

 .species, now in the collection of Mr. C. W. Johnson, have the 

 femora more or less dull metallic green dusted with white. 

 The abdomen of the female is broader than that of the male, and 

 compressed dorsoventrally. It has .six distinct and a seventh 

 more or less apparent .segment. The ovipositor is short, blunt 

 and of a deep black color. 



The great similarity of the sexes and of tlie two species of 

 Hypocharassus adds to the validity of the genus which Mik 

 places between the Hydrophorus and Machccrium, representa- 

 tives of which have not yet Ijecn found in America. It is 

 more closely related to the latter genus, although it undoubt- 

 edly resembles Diostracus in the large size of the palpi and 

 Thinophilus in general appearance. 



