22 R. W. CROSSKEY 
two groups separated medially and normally consisting of three or four such setae 
standing in a transverse line on each side; long strong setae of this kind on T7 + 8 
almost never occur in other Proseninae, though similar setae are found in the Euro- 
pean genus Deximorpha Rondani and the Australian genus Acucera Malloch. 
Enderlein (1936) divided the Rutiliines, which in his treatment ranked as a sub- 
family, into five tribes (of which two tribes are Ameniines), and Townsend (1936, 
1938) divided his Rutiliidae into two tribes, but both of these workers are renowned 
for their taxonomic ‘splitting’ and later workers have, rightly in my view, declined 
to accept any validity for these tribes; nor have the many ill-defined and unnecessary 
genera erected by Enderlein (1936) been accepted (Paramonov, 1968 : 351, has 
pointed out that they are unwarranted, and often misleading because of misidentifi- 
cation of the type-species, and I agree entirely with Paramonov’s view). In the 
present work no subtribes are recognized, and the scope of the Rutiliini is very 
similar to that shown by Paramonov (1968), except that the genera Ola Paramonov, 
1968, and Ruwya Paramonov, 1968 (of which the type-species and several other 
included species have been examined) are excluded: the facies of Ola and Ruya are 
not at all those of Rutiliini, both possess three strong post ia setae (such as rarely 
occur in Rutiliines), the conformation of the flat face is quite unlike Rutiliines, and 
there are many other features on which Ola and Ruwya must be excluded from the 
tribe. It should be noted that Paramonov (1968 : 381) was himself doubtful about 
the inclusion of these genera in Rutiliini. 
Paramonov (1968 : 350-352) has given an historical review of the description of 
Rutiliine genera, which need not be repeated here. Up to now 38 generic and 
subgeneric names have been proposed for Rutiliine flies, most of which are nomen- 
claturally available though many of them are considered taxonomically invalid in 
Paramonov’s (1968) treatment and in the present work. Two names published by 
Paramonov (1968), viz. Formotilia and Rutilosia, are unavailable under Article 13 (b) 
of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature because there is no fixation of a 
type-species for either genus. The names Diaphania Macquart, Roederia Brauer & 
Bergenstamm, Agalmia Enderlein and Ewucompsa Enderlein are preoccupied 
homonyms, and the replacement name Prodiaphania Townsend is available for the 
first of these; the others are synonyms and do not require replacement names. 
The name Eucompsa Enderlein, 1936, in Rutiliini was proposed by Enderlein (1936 : 
400) as a new genus, with Rutilia minor Macquart cited as type-species, although 
Enderlein had himself already erected the genus Eucompsa Enderlein, 1922, in 
Tabanidae, and R. minor was already type-species of Microrutilia Townsend: thus 
in one name Enderlein achieved the feat of publishing a junior objective synonym 
(of a Townsend genus) and a junior homonym (the latter of one of his own names)! 
In the present re-classification of the Rutiliini I recognize the following eight 
genera: Formosia Guérin-Méneville, Rutilodexia Townsend, Formodexia gen.n., 
Rutilia Robineau-Desvoidy, Amphibolia Macquart, Chrysopasta Brauer & Bergen- 
stamm, Prodiaphania Townsend, and Chetogaster Macquart. Three of these are 
divided into subgenera, three subgenera being recognized in Formosia, seven in 
Rutilia and two in Amphibolia. 
A detailed study of the male genitalia throughout the tribe has shown that there 

Al, 
