On the genus Äpiocera. 293 



different type, far remote from that of the Asilidae and Apiocerä etc. 

 Some other reserablances which may be pointed out between the forras 

 in question, are insignificant when compared to the differences, and 

 when contrasted with the homologies between Äpiocera and the Asilidae. 



Granted that Äpiocera is an Asilid, it remains to decide in which 

 of the three sections of that family it must be placed. After what has 

 been said above about the relationship of Äpiocera to Erax and the 

 section Asilina in general, the alternative would consist merely between 

 placing Äpiocera in that section, or forming a separate section for it. 

 I would prefer the form er, and would consider Äpiocera as an Asilid 

 whose terminal antennal arista has been contracted into a short style. 

 My reason for this preference lies in the consideration that the existing 

 distribution in three sections in confessedly an artiflcial one (see about 

 it the observations of Dr. Schiner in the Verh, Z. B. Ges. 1865, p. 

 997 and 1866, p. 651), and that it would be less disturbed by the 

 inti-oduction of Äpiocera among the Asilina, than by the adoption of 

 a separate section Apiocerina, which, in other respects, is a natural group. 



Here is the place to mention the remarkable californian genus 

 ßaphiomidas, described by me in the Western Diptera, p. 281 (1877), 

 but which, unfortunately, I cannot compare in the original now and 

 must rely on the incomplete data of my description, I placed it 

 among the Midaidae, from which it differs in having distinct ocelli (I 

 could distinguish only two), and a shorter discal cell; the venation approa- 

 ches the Chilian genus Mitrodetus and is therefore nearer to the Asilidae 

 than to the Midaidae; that is, there are three cells intervening between 

 the forked cell and the posterior margin. The proboscis is elongated, 

 like that of Mitrodetus. My description is silent about the presence 

 or absence of macrochaetae and palpi and about the shape of the 

 scutellum, but Dr. Hagen, who at my request, kindly examined the 

 original type in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass., 

 informs me that thoracic and scutellar macrochaetae are present , and 

 that the scutellum is Asilus-like. It would seem therefore that Rha- 

 phiomidas is an Asilid of a peculiar type, having, like Anypenus, 

 a Midaid-like venation, but antennae of a different structure and a 

 much longer proboscis. 



It remains for me to examine whether Anypenus Phil, should be 

 considered a synonym of Äpiocera or kept separate from it. Dr. Brauer 

 (1. c. p. 51) has pointed out quite correctly, that the difference consists 

 in the course of the second vein issuing from the discal cell, which in 

 Anypenus ends before, in Äpiocera behind the apex of wing. The 

 adoption of these two groups would be justifiable, if they received an 

 additional weight from their geographica! distribution; if all the Anypenus 

 beloDged to America, and all Äpiocera to Australia. But, as I have 



