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



bers, as soon as the genera are synonyms?) are placed next to the 

 Berinae, in the group VII Transitoriae Brauer, characterized by 

 spurs on the middle tibiae. The same is repeated in the intro- 

 ductory chapter (p. 5): „Dagegen gehört Antissa Walker, synonym 

 mit Cyanauges Philippi, entschieden in die Nähe der Berinen und ist 

 durch die gespornten Mittelschienen sehr verwandt mit Acantho- 

 myia." Finally, on p. 15 (No. 92) Cyanauges is more fully characte- 

 rized, and I take Philippi's work in band to compare the characters. 

 I find for Brauer's ,,eyes hairy", oculi glabri; for „middle tibiae 

 with a distinct apical spur", tibiae inermes; for „abdomen with five 

 or six Segments", abdomen quadriannulatum; for ,,scutellum with 

 10 to 12 spines", scutellum 6 vel potius 8 dentatum. This is 

 what Dr. B. calls a complete agreement! Happening to know that 

 Rondani described Cyanauges valdiviana independently, two years 

 before Philippi, from a specimen sent by the latter, I compare bis 

 description (Archivio per la Zool. Vol. VII, fasc. I, Modena 1863) and 

 find that, like Philippi, he describes the scutellum as having 8 spines 

 and the eyes as gläbrous. Now I turn to W^alker's Antissa and find 

 (List V, p. 63) scutellum spinis quatuor minimis and not ten or 

 twelve, as Dr. B. has it. The question arises whether what Dr. B. 

 calls Mr. Walker's type is a type of Ant. cuprea at all? From Mr. 

 Walker even types must be received with caution; timeo et dona 

 ferentem. Antissa cuprea Wk. is from Western Australia; Dr. B.'s 

 type from Cape York, two regions separated by 20 — 25 degrees of 

 latitude and about as many of longitude. 



This is not all. From the statemeuts in Dr. B.'s paper one would 

 suppose that he knows Cyanauges merely from Dr. Philippi's descrip- 

 tion. And yet, as I open Dr. Schiner's Diptera of the Novara p. 54, 

 I find that Dr. Schiner described Cyanauges ruficornis n. sp. male and 

 female, the specimens of which exist, of course, in the Museum in 

 Vienna. In a note, appended to bis description, Dr. Schiner expresses 

 his views on the genus in general. In agreement with Philippi, he 

 says that the scutellum has 6 or 8 spines and the abdomen four 

 Segments. He adds that it may be related to Antissa Wk. , but that 

 the synonymy cannot be assumed, as M. Walker's description speaks 

 of only four scutellar spines etc. 



Has Dr. B. read this passage? Has he seen and compared those 

 specimens ? 



Here are some minor corrections: 



Cacosis (p. 30). The type of this genus is Sargus niger Wied. 

 (comp. Wk. Ins. Saund. 83, Tab. III. f. 1) and not Sargus vespertilio 



