BY E. W. FERGUSON" AND G. P. HILL. 



SiLvius sORDiDus Taylor. 



t 



S. sordidus, Proe. Linn. Soc. N.S. AVales, xL, 1915, p. 808— S. subluridus, 

 Taylor, op. cit., xli., 1916, p. 752. 



We have examined the type of S. subluridus Taylor and cannot distinguish 

 it from S. sordidus Taylor; the name must therefore be added to the synonymy 

 already given by us in our previous paper (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S. Wales, xlv., 

 1920, p. 462). 



SiLVius FDLVOHIRTUS Taylor. 



S. fulvohirtus, Taylor, Proe. Linn. Soc. N.S. Wales, xl., 1915 (1916), p. 

 814.— S. vicinus, Taylor, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S. Wales, xliv., 1919, p. 46. 



Two specimens of this rare species have recently been received for identifi- 

 cation from Cairns district, N. Queensland. 



A specimen which had been compared with the type S. fulvohirtus Taylor, 

 was forwarded to the Queensland Museum and Mr. Backer very kindly com- 

 pared it with the type of S. vicinus Taylor in that Institution. Mr. Hacker sub- 

 sequently wrote that, apart from some slight differences in the clothing and in 

 the colour of the legs, the specimen sent agreed with the type of 5'. vicinus. He 

 further stated that in his opinion the two species were identical, the apparent 

 differences being due to abrasion and to fading. 



Tabanus nejiopunctatus Ric. 



T. nemopunctatus, Eieardo, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (8), xiv., 1914, p. 388. — 

 T. aurihirtus, Ricardo, op. cit., (8), xv., 1915, p. 290. — T. hackeri, Tavlor, Proe. 

 Linn. Soc. N.S. Wales, xlii., 1917, p. 522. 



The synonymy of this species is somewhat involved and has been the subject 

 of much correspondence between the authors and Dr. Guy A. K. Marshall of 

 the Imperial Bureau of Entomology, to whom their thanks are due for his kind- 

 ness in helping to elucidate this and other problems. 



The chief point at issue was the identity of the specimens in the British 

 Museum labelled T. townsvillei Ric. These did not in the least correspond to 

 the description given by Miss Ricardo, and we are now informed that the speci- 

 mens in question are really the tj'pes and paratypes of T. aurihirtus Ric., the 

 wrong name-label having been attached. The question of the identity of T. 

 townsvillei Ric. must remain in abeyance for the present. 



For our identification of T. nemopunctatus Ric, we ai-e relying upon the 

 comparison by Dr. Marshall of specimens sent to London (E.W.F.) under the 

 name T. hackeri, these specimens having been kindly given us by the Queensland 

 Museum authorities. In his letter Dr. Marshall states "T. hackeri., Taylor — very 

 close to the unique type of T. nemopunctatus Ric, and doubtfully distinct." 

 These specimens of T. hackeri have also been compared with what is practically 

 a paratype of T. nemopunctatus in Mr. Froggatt's collection, and also with the 

 original description and we cannot find any reason to separate them. The 

 identity of T. amrihirtus Ric. with T. nemopunctatus Ric is more open to ques- 

 tion. The only difference apparently is that T. nemopunctatus has no callus, 

 while one is described in T. aurihirttts. Miss Ricardo, however, notes that the 

 callus may possibly be covered by the pubescence in very fresh specimens. 



The series of T. aurilvirtus before us was originally determined as T. towns- 

 villei Ric from comparison with the specimens in the British Museum referred to 

 above. Comparison with our series of T. hackeri Taylor shows that the two 

 series are certainly conspeeiflc. 



