122 AUSTRALIAN RHYPHID^ AND LEPTID^ (DIPTEEa), 



Chrysopilus rufipes, White, P. and P. Roy. Soc. Tasm., 



pg. 40, 1914. 

 Chrysopilus antipodes, Bigot, Soc. Zool. France, xii., pg. 



105, 1887. 

 Chrysopilus tasmaniensis, White, P. and P. Roy. Soc. Tasm., 



pg. 40, 1914. 



Specimens of Ghrysopiliis are represented in most of 

 the collections examined by me, " and they invariably 

 belong to this variable species, two forms of which White 

 separated on colour and habits in Tasmania. 



An extreme form is common at Trevallyn, Launces- 

 ton, which has an extra wide head, and the wings are 

 suffused with black anteriorly from the base and reach 

 to two thirds of the length of tlie costa. Mr. C. E. Cole 

 took a specimen approaching this form at Eltham, Victoria. 



MacQuarts species from Tasmania was evidently cor- 

 Tectly identified by White, and Bigot's species is probably 

 identical. Whites type of C . tasmaniensis only differs in 

 the colour of the legs and probably this is the form 

 described by Walker from Australia as Leptis ceqtialis. 



A long series of specimens shows these forms merging 

 into each other and therefore they cannot be considered 

 distinct .species. 



Hab. — ^Tasmania : Mt. Wellington, Hobart, Bagdad 

 Valley, Eaglehawk Neck, Mt. Maria, Launceston, Cradle 

 Mt. It has ai wide distribution throughout Tasmania and 

 occurs from October to April. 



Victoria: One specimen, Eltham, 26th October, 1918. 

 (Collector.— C. E. Cole.) 



New South Wales : One specimen from behind Sublime 

 Point, Thirroul, 30th March, 1918. Also a number in the 

 Macleay Museum. 



The type of C. tasmaniensis, White, is in the British 

 Museum. 



Chrysopilus auratus, Fabr. 



Atherix auratus, Fabr., Syst. Ant., pg. 73, 1805. 

 Chrysopilus auratus, Kertesz. Cat. Dipt, iii., pg. 318, 1908 



(which sieiei for further refeirencesi). 

 liliagio atrata, Meig., Klassi. Ins. 302, 1805. 

 Chrysopila atrata, Maeq., Dipt. Exot., suppl. 2., pg. 50, 



1847; Walk., Dis. Saund. Dipt, i., pg. 164,' 1852. 



This species is European, and the Australian records are 



evidently incorrect. Neither Macquart nor Walker gave 



any definite descriptionsi, and it is impossible to determine 



what species they actually had before them. 



