34 R. W. CROSSKEY 
anterior stp/ sometimes very weak and hair-like ing. Postalar callus with three setae. Scutum 
without supernumerary prescutellar setae between the hindmost acy and dc setae. Disc of 
scutellum not conspicuously flattened. Fore coxa bare on inner half of anterior surface (except 
near apex). 73 with a transverse row of median marginal setae either in both sexes or in 9 
only. T5 with long dense hair behind the transverse row of setae in which some long strong 
setae developed. 
DistTrisuTion. From the Molucca Islands (including Halmahera, Ternate, 
Batjan, Seram, Buru, Run Island) through New Guinea to the Solomons, and in 
Australia from Queensland to Tasmania, also Western Australia. [No specimens 
have been seen from Bismarck Archipelago or Aru Islands but these areas are almost 
certainly within the subgeneric range: Osten Sacken (1881) recorded a specimen of 
pretiosa Snellen van Vollenhoven from Wokan in the Aru Islands. ] 
Discussion. Townsend (1916) proposed the genus EuampMbolia for Rutilia 
fulvipes Guérin-Méneville, a large and attractive Rutiliine with a black-and-white 
body pattern superficially similar to that of some Amphibolia species (Brauer & 
Bergenstamm, 1889 : 418, had in fact placed fulvipes, though attributing the species 
to Macquart, in the genus Amphibolia). This distinctive species was described by 
Erichson (1842) with the name Rwtilia speciosa in the year before Guérin-Méneville’s 
(1843) description of fulvipes was published; nevertheless it is clear from Guérin- 
Méneville’s account that he knew of Erichson’s name, for he expressed some doubt 
as to whether his fulvipes was really distinct from Erichson’s speciosa. Later authors 
have had no doubts that the names are synonyms: the synonymy of fulvipes with 
speciosa was implied by Malloch (1927 : 351) when he cited speciosa as the genotype of 
Euamphbolia, was formally established by Townsend (1932 : 38), and was cited by 
Enderlein (1936 : 430) and Townsend (1938 : 414). Direct comparison of original 
types is not possible, for although Erichson’s types still exist (and have been 
examined) that of Guérin-Méneville is lost: but Guérin-Méneville’s detailed descrip- 
tion of fulvipes applies so perfectly to Erichson’s types of speciosa that I here accept 
the synonymy as certainly correct (as this is in accord with previous practice there 
is no need of neotype designation for fulvipes). (It should be noted that Townsend, 
1932, 1938, was in error to state that a holotype—sex unspecified by Townsend—of 
fulvipes from New South Wales is in Paris Museum: there is no such specimen in 
Paris, although Macquart’s collection contains material determined as fulvipes by 
Macquart.) 
Malloch (1927 : 351) wrote of speciosa as follows: ‘This is the genotype of Euampiu- 
bolia Townsend, but I do not consider it entitled to generic separation from Formosia, 
the only character distinguishing it being the pubescent arista. It may ultimately be 
accorded subgeneric rank with atribasis.’ I completely agree with Malloch’s views 
(although there are certainly more characters than the pubescent arista which 
distinguish Euamphibolia from Formosia s.str.) and here accord to EuampMboha 
the status of a subgenus within Formosia s.1. In agreement also with Malloch, I 
consider Walker’s airibasis to be consubgeneric with speciosa, and the generic name 
Chromocharis Enderlein (of which atribasis is type-species) therefore enters into new 
synonymy with Euamphibolia. 
The generic name Hega Enderlein is also a new synonym of Euamphibaea 
7 
