36 [February, 



on each side. What Meade regards as facial setae are really part of the series of 

 frontal bristles, which are continued down the face itself to well below the middle, 

 and terminate nearly on a level with the lower margin of the eye. These descending 

 frontal setse run near to the facial ridges, it is true, but, neyertheless, well to the 

 outside, and the end of the series curves distinctly outwards towards the eye. The 

 true nature of Meade's supposed " facial " setae is evident at once when the insect is 

 viewed from in front, in the manner already described ; if the head is looked at in 

 profile and slightly from the rear, the descending frontal setse might well be sup- 

 posed to spring from the facial ridges. In ^^ Fhorooera" incerta, Meade, therefore, 

 the facial ridges are not fringed with setse, and this in itself precludes the possibility 

 of the species belonging either to Pkorocera or Campylochceta. In working out the 

 MuscidcB in the new collection of British Diptera in the British Museum, I have 

 followed Prof. Brauer's latest arrangement of the " Muscaria schizometopa " (Verh. 

 z.-b. Gres. Wien, Jahrg., 1893, pp. 447 — 525), under which CampylocJi(Eta retains its 

 generic rank (cf. loc. cit., p. 480). If further reasons are required as to why 

 " Pkorocera " incerta, Meade, cannot belong to Campylochceta, they may be found 

 in the absence of the strongly developed $ hypopygium, curved forwards beneath 

 the tip of the abdomen, and of the elongated tarsal claws of the $ — both of which 

 characters are well exhibited in Campylochata (TacMna) obscura, Fin. (? = Tachina 

 scMstacea, Mg. ; Campylochata id., Eond.). 



The true systematic position of Mr. Meade's species is another 

 question, which I must frankly admit I am unable to answer. I do 

 not know where to place it myself, and, after many attempts, I have 

 utterly failed to run it down to any existing genus with the tables 

 either of Schiner or Brauer (Yerh. z.-b. Ges, "Wien, 1893, pp. 463 — 

 510). From this point of view it is a little unfortunate that the 

 specimens which Mr. Morley has kindly presented to the Museum 

 are both males. Possibly the species should be placed somewhere 

 near Masicera ; in any case a new genus will probably have to be 

 founded for its reception. 



Nemoejea quadeaticoenis, Meade (Ent. Mo. Mag., ser. 2, 

 vol. V, 1894, p. 160). 



The type of this species is in the collection of Mr. C. Morley, through whose 

 kindness I have recently been enabled to examine it. The species is identical with 

 one which, in November, 1896, I incorporated into the British Museum collection as 

 Micropalpus pudicus, Rond. (Dipt. Ital. Prod., iii, 1859, p. 69). Consequently, if, 

 as I believe, my identification of Eondani's species is correct, the name quadrati- 

 cornis must fall. In the specimens determined by me as M. pudicus the palpi, 

 although extremely slender, are not abbreviated, and in addition to this there are 

 other striking differences from normal representatives of the genus Micropalpus, 

 such as M. vulpinus, Fin., and J!f. cofwp^ws, Fin. (=yMZ$7ews, Schin. ; Mg., ^. ^.).* 



* The type of the genus Micropalpus is M. (Linnamya) Sophia, Eob. Desv. (Essai sur les 

 Myodaires, p. 53), a Sicilian species, but, as I have no personal acquaintance with this, I do not 

 refer to it. 



