368 C. R. Osten Sacken: On Prof. Brauer s paper: 



species under its true name, E. marginata! The genus Toxocera may 

 therefore be Struck out. 



Myxosargus (p. 21). The specimens of this new genus, des- 

 cribed by Dr. B. are from Mexico. I possess one from Dallas, Texas 

 (collected by Boll); its antennae are altogether black; the middle 

 tibiae are also dark, but the distal third is yellow; the grayish cross- 

 bands on the wings are connected at the costa. Nevertbeless, I do 

 not doubt that it is the same species. I would not compare the an- 

 tennae to those of Chordonota as Dr. B. does (Linn. Entomol. XI, 

 Tab. III, f. 13). I remember seeing specimens of Myxosargus in Mr. 

 V, Roeder's and Prof. Bellardi's coUections. 



Hylorus (p. 16, No. 99 and p. 82). I have seen Hylorus 

 Krausei in Mr. Bigot's collection. It Struck me by its resemblance 

 to Chiromyza, from which it differs in having the third vein furcate- 

 Mr. Bigot goes too far, I think, when he unites it with Chiromyza 

 (Annales etc. 1879, 185). 



Lagarus (p. 17, No. 110). Among the notes which I took in 

 Mr. Bigot's collection, several years ago, I find one which say's that 

 Lagarus is a Chiromyza with an open discal cell. 



Macrocerotnys Bigot (p. 17, No. 118). Dr. B. says about 

 the antennae: ,, ausser den zwei kurzen cylindrischen Basal- 

 gliedern, sollen 10 — 11 undeutlich geschiedene längere Geisselglieder 

 vorhanden sein." This is not correct. Both in the Ann. S. E. Fr. 1877, 

 Bull. p. LXXIII and 1. c. 1879, p. 187, Mr. Bigot describes the 

 whole antenna as counting 10 — 11 joints; and this agrees with the 

 antenna of Subula, to which Mr. Bigot compares Macroceromys. The 

 description of the wings is exactly applicable to Subula, and in that 

 light, there is nothing incomprehensible in it. Macroceromys, which I 

 remember seiug in Mr. Bigots collection differs from Subula by its 

 elongated antennae. There is no room for a comparison with Rhachicerus, 



Antidoccion and Rhachiceriis (p. 17). They are characterized 

 thus: 



Antennae pectinate, the singlejointsbearingbranches^nif«(^ 0(2?« OW. 



Antennae moniliform or serrate, without branches Rhachicerus. 



This is so far incorrect as one half of the North-American species 



of Rhachicerus have the antennae pectinate as much as a Ctenophora! 



Compare my Western Diptera, p. 212, where an analytical table of 



