.1S93.J ■ 219 



EEMARKS UPON THE SYNONYMY OF SOME RATHER OBSCURE 

 DIPTERA IN THE FAMILY ANTHOMYIID^, TOGETHER WITH 

 A NOTICE OF SOME UNRECORDED BRITISH SPECIES. 



BT R. H. MEADE. 



The difficulty of describing small insects accurately, so that one 

 species may be clearly distinguished from another by the description 

 alone, without the aid of figures, is very great ; especially among little 

 Biptera, which are often very similar, both in structure and appear- 

 ance. Owing to this difficulty, many species have been named over 

 and over again by different titles by different authors, and the same 

 species has sometimes been described more than once under different 

 names by the same author ; thus it becomes almost impossible to clear 

 up the synonymy without reference to the original specimens preserved 

 in different museums. 



I have been induced to make these remarks by the perusal of a 

 very interesting paper by Herr V. P. Stein upon the types of some of 

 the Anthomyiid(S, in the collections of Fallen and Zetterstedt, which 

 he has carefully examined in the Museum at Lund.* By these re- 

 searches Stein has been able to clear up some difficult points, and 

 enable Dipterists to decide upon the true or original names of several 

 disputed species. I must refer those who are much interested in the 

 subject to Stein's paper itself, as I only wish to draw attention to a 

 few species, the original names of which were a source of considerable 

 doubt and difficulty to me when I published my Annotated List o£ 

 British Anthomyiidce.f 



Spilogaster duplaris, Zett. 



Under this label Stein found the following species placed : first came a male of 

 Sp. communis, Dsv., this was followed by three males of Sp. dupUcata, Mgn., then 

 came another specimen of Sp. communis, marked duplicata, and, lastly, one of Sp. 

 duplicata, labelled Sp. quadrimaculata, Fin. This shows that Zetterstedt con- 

 founded the males of Sp. communis and duplicata with his duplaris. The two 

 former species are cei'tainly distinct, though they were mixed up by Rondani, as well 

 as Zetterstedt ; the last, however, as described by Zetterstedt, was merely a variety 

 of one of the others (probably Sp. duplicata) ; so the name of duplaris must lapse. 

 I described a species in my list under this name, which I submitted to the late Prof. 

 Rondani, and he said he thought it was the Sp. duplaris, Zett. I am now convinced 

 that it was only a variety of Sp. duplicata. Herr v. Stein also described a Spilo- 

 gaster as the Sp. duplaris, Zett. ?,% which differs from both Sp. communis and Sp. 

 duplicata in having only three post-sutural, central, thoracic bristles, instead of four. 



* Ent. Nachrichten, Nos. 20 and 21, 1892. t Ent. Mon. Mag., vol. xvili, p. 1. 



{ Ent. Nachrichten, 1889. 



