138 ENTOMOI.OGICAI. NEWS. [May, '19 



tions approximated crossveins and the forward curv^ature of 

 the fourth vein as generic characters, but the former of these 

 proved to be a mistake. 



Meigen in 1838 accepted the genus and added a third species, 

 Heteroneura scatophagina Fallen, which he had himself pre- 

 viously referred to Agromyza. He figures glahricula, but the 

 venation is not quite alike in the two wings, and he shows a 

 full complement of basal cells which afterward proved an 

 error. He mentions as generic characters only the absence 

 of bristles on the anterior part of the front and the course of 

 the fourth vein. 



Westwood in 1840 placed Lciomyza as a subgenus of Agro- 

 myza, defining it in a few words and repeating Macquart's 

 error about the approximation of the crossveins ; he mentioned 

 scatophagina as "typical species," although he probably had no 

 thought of giving it any taxonomic prominence above the 

 other two by so doing. As it was not originally included, it 

 could not be the type species in a modern sense. 



Zetterstedt in 1848 gave the best description of the genus 

 yet published, evidently drawing the characters from Fallen's 

 type of scatophagina, which he also redescribed ; he also des- 

 ignated this species as ''Typiis generis/' 



Schiner in 1864 was unable to give a satisfactory account 

 of the genus, his only material being a determined specimen 

 from the Haliday collection and one from Winnertz, which 

 were obviously not congeneric, yet both resembled the aescrip- 

 tions. We can now decide that Winnertz was right, but 

 Schiner could only adapt the earlier descriptions after a 

 fashion, leaving the genus more confused than before. 

 Rondani never attempted to place the genus. 

 Becker cleared up the matter very much in 1902 by publish- 

 ing the characters of the specimen standing as type of laevi- 

 gata in the Meigen collection, with a figure of the venation. 

 This specimen has the characters assigned by Meigen to the 

 genus, but specifically agrees better with glahricula, as it has 

 yellow halteres and the hind femora not black at tip. The 

 glahricula type, or supposed type, is preserved with it but is 

 now headless. It has the same wing characters and is un- 



