22 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIOlsTAL MUSEUM voi. 72- 



(fig. 2, drawn by my colleague, C. T. Greene). I see only two slight 

 points of difference between our northern males and the Brasilian 

 ones — the latter have two small bristles outside the lower ones in the 

 frontal row, as mentioned by Schiner, and they also have a somewhat 

 narrower and more sharply limited basal pollinose crossband on the 

 second and third abdominal segments. I do not consider these differ- 

 ences sufficient to maintain even a varietal standing for coccyx. 



100. PHOROCERA BISEKIAUS Schiner 



Phoroccra biserialis ScHiNiaj, Novara Reise, 1868, p. 326. 

 CtenopJwrocera Mserialis Bkauek and Bergenbtamm, Denk. Wien. Akad. 

 Wiss., vol. 58, 1891, pp. 342, 402. 



One male, one female, " S. Amerika " and " Rio de Janei ", both 

 with puparia as indicated by Schiner. 



Since Schiner referred the species to Phorocera, it is necessary to 

 find out why Brauer and Bergenstamm placed it in a different genus. 



Ctenophorocera was proposed by Brauer and Bergenstamm in 1891, 

 and four species were placed in it — Tachina experta Wiedemann, 

 from Cape of Good Hope ; Phorocera hiseriailis Schiner from Brazil ; 

 Tachina rrmnda Wiedemann, from Tranquebar ; and hlepharipus^ new 

 species, from Cape of Good Hope or Brazil. In 1893 (p. 84) they 

 removed munda Wiedemann to Achaetoneura, remarking that the 

 eyes were almost bare. In the same year in the keys they placed the 

 genus OtenopJiorocera^ on page 119, in the Group Phorocera and ou 

 page 121, in Group Blepharipoda, both times referring directly to 

 experta as if it were type. Townsend ^^ designated experta as type. 



I asked to see only the American species hiserialis and the possibly 

 American one hlepharipus^ which are before me. Unfortunately I 

 did not ask for the type species of the genus. 



I have, however, compared the two I have with the generic de- 

 scription. The characters possibly differentiating the genus from 

 Phorocera (type assimilis Fallen) are three. First, the row of 

 bristles extending up each facial ridge is accompanied on the outer 

 side by a row of hairs. It requires only an examination of a dozen 

 or so of related species to see that this has very slight value. Second, 

 the length of the head at vibrissae is almost equal to that at an- 

 tennae; in other words the face is hardly receding. This is true 

 of lilephaTipus but certainly not of Mserialis. The American genus 

 Murdochianm might be considered here, but it has the epistoma 

 strongly jutting forward between the vibrissae, unlike JjlephaHpus, 

 The third character is the ciliation of the hind tibiae, which is 

 present in both of the species before me. This is a character which 

 is best developed in males, runs through all possible degrees, and its 



"5 Ins. Ins. Menst, vol., 4, 1919, p. 7. 



