248 BULLETIN UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. 



The Californian species which I have before me may be tabulated as 

 follows : 



1. Anterior half of the wings brown, which color has a well-defined 



posterior border 1. major Linn. 



2. Anterior part of the wings brown; the posterior, or hyaline region, 



with six or seven brown spots 2. albicapillus Loew. 



3. Basal portion of the wings more or less brown, which color is grad- 



ually evanescent posteriorly : 

 Frontal triangle (in the male) Avith a conspicuous covering of sil- 

 very white, shining, recumbent pile 3. metopium n. sp- 



Frontal triangle (of the male) with blackish or golden-yellow, 

 never conspicuous, pile : 

 Face and cheeks with a dense beard of pale yellowish, shining ; 

 comparatively long hair, entirely concealing the color 



of the face under it 4, aurifer n. sp. 



Face and cheeks with a sparse beard of mostly black pile, not 

 dense enough to conceal the color of the face and 

 cheeks under it; proboscis very long : 

 Smaller species, with a fringe of golden pile round the 



mouth , 5. cacJimnans n. sp. 



Larger species, with only black pile round the mouth, 



6. lancifer n. sp. 



1. BoMBYLius MAJOR Linn. — Dr. Loew identified with this European 

 species specimens of the most common Californian Bomhylius. I have 

 about two dozen specimens, principaHy from Marin County, which 

 vary in size from 7"™ to nearly 12""'. The color is likewise vari- 

 able in the more or less brown or yellowish shade of the fur, in the 

 greater or lesser distinctness of the tufts of black pile on the sides of the 

 abdomen, etc. In a number of specimens, there is no vestige of white 

 fur on the chest and the mentum. Three specimens have the femora 

 black and the tarsi dark brown. The females, of which I have five, 

 show on the front part of the thorax the blackish spot, which distin- 

 guishes the southern variety of the European B. major (see Loew, 

 Neue Beitr., iii, 14). Whether some of these varieties do not consti- 

 tute different species, I do not pretend to decide. At the same time, I 

 confess not to know in what the difference between B. major and B. 

 fratellus of the Eastern States consists. Wiedemann (Auss. Zw., i, p. 

 583) merely mentions the absence of the tufts of black pile on the ab- 

 domen ; but I have seen specimens with such tufts. Macquart (Dipt. 

 Exot., ii, 1, 98; B. vicinus) says that B. fratellus (his B. vicinus) resem- 

 bles B. jnajor, but that its fur on the abdomen is fulvous instead of 

 yellow ; that is all. Loew (1. c.) adopts fratellus as a separate species, 

 but does not throw any light on the subject of its difference from B. 

 major; he merely observes that apparently several species occur under 

 that name in collections. As long, therefore, as it is not settled whether 

 fratellus on one side and the Californian major on the other represent 



