REVISIONARY CLASSIFICATION OF RUTILIINI 7 
once known (wrongly from the nomenclatural viewpoint) as the Dexiinae, and I 
have here continued to use the subfamily name Proseninae although it is clearly not 
the oldest available name for the taxon. The family-group name Proseninae dates 
from 1892, and is pre-dated by several family-group names proposed by Brauer & 
Bergenstamm (of which Rutiliidae itself is one) and probably by other even earlier 
names. It will be a very complex nomenclatural question to resolve which of the 
many family-group names in the Tachinidae are based upon genera belonging in 
the “Proseninae’, and which of them should be brought into use as the valid name 
for this subfamily; until this can be done thoroughly, with a real prospect of long- 
term stability, I consider it best to continue using the name Proseninae as I have 
done in the present work. 
MATERIAL AND METHODS 
The revisionary work presented here has been based on the extensive collection 
of Rutiliini housed at the British Museum (Natural History) and on the assembly 
of as many of the primary types as possible from overseas museums. Most of the 
types in depositories in Sydney and Canberra were examined during a visit to 
Australia in 1965, and Macquart’s types (which could not be borrowed) were studied 
at the Paris museum in 1969. Primary types have been examined of 151 species- 
group nominal taxa out of the 168 for which type-material is known to be still in 
existence; for the remaining few names type examination was either not essential 
because the species were recently and very well described, or was not possible 
because types could not be loaned and there was no opportunity to examine them 
(e.g. Macquart’s types of Amphibolia valentina and Diaphania testacea in Lille). 
Some types are lost (surprisingly few in view of the relative antiquity of many of 
the names) and a few have not been located but may still exist. The primary types 
of the 168 nominal taxa with located types are distributed as follows: 54 in British 
Museum (Natural History), London; 49 in Australian collections (Australian National 
Insect Collection, Canberra; Australian Museum, Sydney; School of Public Health 
and Tropical Medicine, Sydney); 34 in Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt- 
Universitat, Berlin; 14 in Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris; 12 in small 
European museums (Brussels, Leiden, Lille, Stockholm and Vienna); and 5 in North 
America (New York and Washington). Seven new species are described in the 
present paper from material in the British Museum (Natural History) and their 
holotypes are in this museum. 
Small collections of Rutiliini from the museums at Oxford, Leiden and Paris, and 
from my own collecting in New Guinea and New Britain, were at hand and taken into 
account during the preparation of this paper. 
The early stages of Rutiliines remain almost completely unknown, and only adult 
flies have been studied. These do not require any special techniques, but some 
comment may be helpful on preparation and figuring of male genitalia. Rutiliini, 
being bulky flies, have sizeable male genitalia which are difficult to slide mount 
satisfactorily, even with cavity slides, though permanent slide preparations should 
always be made using such slides; nearly always the hypopygium rolls at least slightly 
