34 Memoirs of the Indian Museum. [Vol. Ill, 



326. mamlifwns {Acanthipeza), Rondani, 1875 (Ann. Mus. Civ. Genova, vii, 438), from Borneo. 



The type of the genus Acanthipeza, but according to Osten-Sacken (1881, p, 479) it is 

 synonymous with Adrama determinata. Type at Genova, Museo Civico. 



327. mibilus (Dams), Hendel, 1912 (Suppl. Entora., i, 16, 2, pi. i, f. 2) from Formosa. A true 



Bactrocera, described as a variety of caudata. Type in Berlin, Entom. Museum. 



328. obscuratus (Dacus), Meijere, 1911 (Tijdschr. v. Entom., liv, 373, i) from Java. A Bactrocera, 



described as a variety of ferruginea. Type in Amsterdam. 



329. parvipunctata (Rioxa), Meijere, 1911 (Tijdschr. v. Entom., liv, 381) from Java. A true 



Rioxa, described as a variety of sexmaculata. Type in Amsterdam. 



330. parvulus (Dacus), Hendel, 1912 (Suppl. Entom., i, 21, 5) from Formosa. A true Bactrocera, 



near ferruginea. Type in Berlin, Entom. Museum. 



331. scutellatus (Dacus), Hendel, 1912 (Suppl. Entom., i, 20, 4, pi. i, f. 4), from Formosa. A true 



Bactrocera. Type in BerHn, Eutoiii. Museum. 



332. selecta (Adrama), Walker, 1859 (Proc. Linn. Soc, iii, 118, 139) from Aru Islands. The 



typical species of the genus Adrama, which is considered by Prof. Hendel to belong to the 

 Trypaneids, near Meracanthomyia. Type in lyondon. 



333. smieroides (Callantra), Walker, i860 (Pwc. Linn. Soc , iv, 154, 187) from Macassar. Prof. 



Hendel (Suppl. Entom., i, 15) says that this species is very like a Dacus s. I., with stalked 

 abdomen; it is therefore perhaps a Try paiieid, while the following genus Aragara belongs 

 to the Ortalids. Type in London. Smieroides is evidently a misprint for smicroides. 



334. s^r?rt^e//fl (Lag-arosza) Van der Wulp, 1891 (Tijdschr. v. Entom., xxxiv, 213, pi. 12, f. 14) 



from Java. According to Prof. Meijere, 1911, p. 383, is evidently the female of lacteata, 

 no. 325. Type in Amsterdam. 



6. NOMENCI.ATURE AND CLASSIFICATION. 



In my paper of 1910 (Boll. Labor. Zoolog. Portici, v, pp. 2-4) I have already 

 discussed the nomenclature and the classification of the family ; I will repeat here 

 briefly the principal points, and give the characters of the sub-divisions. 



For a long time the family name has been Tephritidae, v^rhich was used chiefly 

 by French authors, and by Rondani as late as in 1870. But the genus Trypeta, 

 Meigen, 1803, being of more early date than Tephritis, Latreille, 1804, the family 

 name universally used until recent times has been Trypetidae. Quite recently, how- 

 ever, after the discovery that Try pet a, Meigen, 1803, is the same as Euribia, Meigen, 

 1800, Czerny has proposed (Verb zool. bot. Ges., lix, 1909, p. 252) to call the family 

 Kuribiidae. I have already (1907) stated that the genus Trypanea (Trupanea) of 

 Schrank, 1795, must be employed in place of Urellia (Robineau-Desvoidy) Loew, and 

 therefore the family name must be drawn from this genus, and must be Trypaneidae, 

 as used in the present paper. Guettard's Trypanea, 1756, cannot be taken into 

 consideration, being prior to the year 1758. 



The subdivision of the family Trypaneidae is very difficult, and up to the pres- 

 ent has not been effected in a satisfactory manner. I have proposed to divide the 

 family into two subfamilies, the Dacinae and the Trypaneinae, and the latter into 

 three tribes. 



I. Subfamily Dacinae. — Antennae elongate, as long as or longer than the face, 

 usually bare, or very rarely shortly pilose. Oc. wanting ; pvt. wanting or very small; 

 occipital row wanting. Hm., prst. and dc. wanting ; anterior sa. and prsc. sometimes 



