New Australian Tabanldac II 



E. vulpccula, Weid., the type species of the genus. While the 

 above three species are undoubtedly the same it seems to me 

 questionable whether they are really synonymous with E. vul- 

 pecula, Weid. 



I have not seen Weidemann's original description, but appar- 

 ently the name was applied to a species with black legs. I have 

 taken a species at Sydney which has the legs, except the coxae 

 deep black, the wings are also smoky, almost deep black in. 

 fresh specimens, but fading somewhat with age, the palpi vari- 

 able in colour, black to testaceous. Compared with this, which 

 corresponds closely with E. vulpccula, Weid., var. nigripennis.. 

 Taylor, are specimens in which the legs are yellowish (tes- 

 taceous) and the wings clear, the stigma being inconspicuous, 

 in marked contrast to the black of the stigma in the other form. 

 While I recognise that the species may prove sufficiently variable 

 to include the two forms, I think that at any rate varietal names, 

 should be given to each. E. vulpccula, W T eid., evidently from all 

 the evidence, should be applied to the black legged form, and 

 I would regard the var. nigripennis, Taylor, as a synonym. I 

 have found this form during two seasons on the flowers of 

 Bur sari a spinosa. 



E. angusta, Macq. (= E. angusta, Bigot and E. rubiginosa, 

 Big.), would apply to the paler legged form. I am indebted to 

 Dr. Guy A. K. Marshall for the following particulars of these 

 species : — 



"Ectenopsis angusta, Macq. (3 cf<?)> an d E. rubiginosa, Big. 

 (1 cT) seem certainly the same, all femora dull testaceous (like 

 the abdomen) ; anterior pairs of tibiae similar but slightly in- 

 fuscated at apex, hind pair ihfuscated throughout; tarsi blackish^, 

 anterior pair paler at base. 



" E. angusta, Big. (1? ). Femora testaceous yellow; tibiae 

 very slightly darker; tarsi infuscated, paler at base." 



Ectenopsis (?) minor, Taylor. 



Silvias minor, Taylor, Records Australian Museum, XII., 5, p.. 



62 (1918). 



I have examined the type of this species, and am strongly 

 of the opinion that it cannot be retained in Silvius. Mr. Taylor 

 kindly re-examined the type at my request, and agrees with me 

 that the antennae are much more of the Ectenopsis type. The 

 number of annulations of the third joint are extremely difficult 

 to make out, but six subdivisions can be seen while the apicaL 



