1898.] 83 



That the older authors were in doubt asi to the true systematic 

 position of this species will have been inferred already from the 

 synonymy given above. Meigen himself, after describing it, wrote : 

 " Perhaps this species would stand better with Sm^cophaga, to which it 

 has great similarity." The (J, at any rate, certainly possesses a 

 general likeness to a small Sarcophaga, especially in the contour of 

 the body when the insect is viewed from above, and the resemblance 

 is of course enhanced when the face is seen to be setigerous ; but it 

 is distinguished at once by the arista being pubescent right to the tip, 

 by the broader front, the convergent facial angles, and the absence of 

 an appendix to the angle of the fourth vein. On subsequently 

 assigning the species to Rhinopliora, Meigen placed it in a division of 

 the genus which he characterized by the absence of a stalk to the first 

 posterior cell {Mittelzelle), and the presence of a costal spine. In 

 describing the species as a Dexia, Zetterstedt was doubtless influenced 

 by the pubescent arista, though he heads his description, ">S/)eaes duhia.'''' 

 The true systematic position of Frauenfeldia is next to the genus 

 BracJiyGoma, which it resembles, owing to the face being setigerous, 

 and by reason of other characters. In Prof. Brauer's final arrange- 

 ment of the genera of the " Muscaria schizometopa " [Verb. z.-b. Ges. 

 Wien, xliii, pp. 510 — 516 (1893)], Frauenfeldia is reduced to the level 

 of a sub-genus of Brachycoina, but for this step I can find no justifi- 

 cation ; the pubescent arista, different shape of the palpi, different 

 shape of the first posterior cell, and the fact that it is closed, or 

 nearly so, on the margin of the wing, and also that on the third vein 

 bristles are confined to the extreme base, instead of clothing it from 

 the base to the anterior transverse vein ; and last, though by no means 

 least, the remarkable lamelliform appendanges to the male genitalia — 

 all these are characters which render it impossible that Frauenfeldia 

 rubricosa, Mg., can be congeneric with Brachycoma devia, Rond. Owing 

 to the fact that, as has been mentioned above, the facial angles in 

 Frauenfeldia are convergent, it will be necessary to modify Brauer 

 and von Bergenstamm's definition of their " Group " or " Section " 

 EniNOPHOfiA, which includes the genera Brachycoma, Frauenfeldia, 

 Rhinophora , and certain non-British forms. 



In conclusion it may be remarked that as the host of Frauenfeldia 

 rubricosa is at present unknown, breeders of Lepidoptera might add to 

 our knowledge by keeping a look out for the fly. 



British Museum (Natural History), 



Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 

 February llth, 1898. 



