370 (7. B. Osten Sacken: On Prof. Brauer s paper: 



information we have about the anal cell of this genus, it is closcd. 

 In describing my A. leptis (Catal. N. Am. Dipt. p. 224) I stated 

 expHcitly that it differs in that pai'ticular from the species described 

 by L e w. 



Anisophysa Macq. This name appears in the alphabetieal list 

 of the genera (p. 30), with ihe addition „(Pachygastrina?)". It is 

 not preceded by a number, as are the other genera, and it is not found 

 in the dichotomical table, nor in the synoptic one (p. 26 — 27). Now 

 Anisophysa Macq. S. k B. II, 544 was introduced for Piophila scutellaris 

 Fall. Meig, now called Scatella scutellaris. (Compare Schiner's Fauna 

 Austr. II, p. 184). How does it happen to figure among the Nota- 

 cantha? Apparently because in Loew's Monogr. N. Am. Dipt. I, p. 18, 

 at ihe end of the genera, referred to the Pachygastrina, Dr. B. found 

 the words: ,,perhaps also Phyllophora Macq. and Anisophysa M?icc{.''' 

 If he had thought it worth while to take Macquart in hand, it would 

 have easily occured to him that, in the above quoted passage Anisophysa 

 is merely a lapsus calami for Dipliysa. 



DipTiysa (p. 16). Dr. B. says it was quite arbitrary (.,ganz 

 willkührhch") that Loew and I took this genus for the same as Esaireta 

 Schiner. This statement, as well as those as the bottom of p. 14, are 

 based upon a misconception. — Diphysa belongs in the number of 

 those genera which Macquart, as he frequeutly did, established a 

 prioiü, without seeing the specimeus, merely upon the data suggested 

 by Wiedemann. When in the course of time he came across speci- 

 mens of such genera, he frequently did not recognize them and described 

 them for a second time under a different name. To any one, accustomed 

 to handle Macquart's writings, such instances are familiär. In the 

 present case, the note in Wied. A. Z. II, 619 at the bottom, about 

 Xylophagus spiniger and rufipalpis gave occasion to the creation« 

 of the genus Diphysa. As Wiedemann compared the venation of 

 those two species to that of Beris (overlooking that Xyl. spiniger has 

 five posterior cells, and Beris only four), Macquart attributes four 

 posterior cells to his Diphysa. At the same time, and owing to the 

 wrong statement about the venation, he did not recognize a specimen 

 of Xyl. spiniger which had before him, and described it as a new 

 species, Beris Servillei, on the same page with Diphysa, duly noticing 

 that it is a Beris with the exceptional number of five posterior cells 

 (Comp. Macq. D. E. I, 1, p. 172). Tbus Diphysa became a purely 

 maginary genus, based upon a mistake and not rcpresented by any 

 typical species. Later, as if not knowing what to do with Diphysa, 



