
REVISIONARY CLASSIFICATION OF RUTILIINI 43 
occasionally specimens occur which lack the apical setae of the scutellum. The 
differences between Rutilia and other Rutiliine genera have been alluded to else- 
where under the different genera and need not be repeated here, but it might be 
useful to emphasize the chief differential characters which separate Rwutilia and 
Formosia, for there has always been some difficulty in separating these genera 
satisfactorily since the time when Guérin-Méneville (1843) first distinguished them. 
The table below indicates the main differences: 
Rutilia 
Postalar wall bare (at most a very few 
hairs immediately below edge). 
Suprasquamal ridge haired (bare in a 
few exceptions). 
Apical scutellar setae inserted below 
level of other marginal setae (very 
rarely absent). 
Marginal setae of abdominal tergite 
Formosia 
Postalar wall with dense hair tuft. 
Suprasquamal ridge bare. 
Apical scutellar setae inserted level with 
other marginal setae. 
Marginal setae of abdominal tergite 
venters usually very weak, recum- 
bent, at most only slightly spiniform 
and directed backwards as well as 
downwards. 
venters very strong, spiniform, direct- 
ed straight downwards. 
Some supposed genera have been split off from Rutilia by various authors but not 
generally accepted as separate genera (e.g. Microrutilia Townsend, Chrysorutilia 
Townsend), and Enderlein (1936) fragmented Rutilia into eleven genera placed in 
two subtribes, using such features as the present or absence of median marginal 
setae on abdominal T3 or the presence or absence of a median depression in the last 
abdominal tergite (T5) as generic characters. In the present work none of these 
genera has been considered valid as a taxon worthy of generic rank, but a few have 
been redefined in the light of the characters shown by the type-species and recog- 
nized as subgenera within Rutilia; in all, seven subgenera are here recognized and 
defined, for six of which there are pre-existing genus-group names available (these 
including Rutilia s.str.) and for one of which a new subgeneric name is proposed 
(there being no previously published name applying to the taxon concerned). The 
subgeneric name Neorutilia Malloch and the following sixteen generic names are 
synonyms of Rutilia s.l. (the correct synonymic distribution of these names according 
to the subgeneric classification here proposed is shown at the head of each subgenus) : 
Agalmia Enderlein, Chrysorutilia Townsend, Donovanius Enderlein, Eucompsa 
Enderlein, Grapholostylum Macquart, Habrota Enderlein, Idania Enderlein, Mene- 
villea Enderlein, Microrutilia Townsend, Philippoformosia Townsend, Prosenostoma 
Townsend, Psaronia Enderlein, Psaroniella Enderlein, Pogonagalmia Enderlein, 
Stiraulax Enderlein and Zoramsceus Enderlein. 
Though the numerous species of Rutilia s.1. (some 60 species at present, but several 
undescribed species known) show great diversity in their general appearance—size, 
colouring, pollinose patterns—and though a few species are difficult to place satis- 
