AUSTRO-MALAYAN DIPTERA 461 



Description and figure agree quite well, except that the tibiae 

 are described as darker towards the tip. 



Dacus (?) furcifer Walker, J. Pr. Lin. Soc. VI, 14 ! (Gilolo). 



One </*; Ternate, Beccari. 



The description is recognizable ; it is a Tnjpetid , but not a 

 Dacus. The pattern of the wings is very like that of a Clei- 

 iamia. 



Dacus (?) mulilloides Walk. J. Pr. Lin. Soc. III. 115! (Aru). 



One spec; Fly River, N. Guin. Dec. 1875 (L. M. D'Alhertis). 



The description says « halteres whitish », while in my spe- 

 cimen the knob is brown ; the distance between the two cross- 

 veins is described as larger , than I find it. The type in the 

 Br. Mus. is smaller , but seems to belong to the same species. 

 It is not a Dacus ^ and apparently not a Trypelid at all; but 

 the specimen is too badly preserved for study. 



Themara (Acanthoneura ?) maculipennis Westw. Cabin. O;-. 

 Entom. p. 38, Tab. 18, f. 4 (Achias). 



Syn. Achias Horsfieldi Westw. Trans- Ent. Soc V, 1850, Tab. 23, f. 9. {^). 

 Themara ampia Walker, Journ. Proc. Lin. Soc 1856, Vol. I, p, 33, Tab. 

 I, f. 5 (?) (the synonymy is acknowledged by 

 Walker himself, 1. c pag. 134). 



M."^ Westwoods specimen was from Java. M.^' Walker's were 

 from Borneo and Singapore , and the one before me is from 

 Sungei Bulu, Sumatra (Beccari, Sept. 1878). Doleschall (3"' Bijdr. 

 52) had it from Amboina. Besides the pale colored base of the 

 abdomen , there is a pale colored crossband , not mentioned in 

 M/ Westwood's description. The female, described and figured 

 in Walker, has Iwo such crossbands. The specific identity is not 

 in the least doubtful. 



Generically, this species has nothing to do with Achias. It is 

 a Trypela and may very well belong in the genus Acanthoneura 

 Macq. D. E. II, 3, 220, on account of its bristly costa, first and 

 third veins, bisinuate second vein, structure of antennae, colo- 



