6 Ro W.. CROSSE Y 
A particular study has been made of the male genitalia. Malloch (1929, 1936), 
Engel (1925) and Paramonov (1968) published a few figures of male terminalia, 
but made no systematic study of them. In the present work the male genitalia 
have been examined for the great majority of species in order to assess their useful- 
ness in classification; the outcome has been to find that they have very limited use 
for supraspecific classification but in many groups provide valuable characters at 
specific level (for further detail see the section on taxonomic characters). 
The larger museum collections of Rutiliini, especially those at Canberra and 
London, contain specimens of several species that are obviously undescribed. I 
have not attempted to place these in the keys to species, which have been drawn 
up to cover only those species already described (as the title of this work states), 
but I have here described seven new species and these are placed in the keys. The 
new species have been described here for definite purposes: either because they 
show characters that significantly extend the range of form or colour previously 
known in the taxa to which they belong, or because they extend the previously 
known geographical range of their genus or subgenus, or to clarify species-complexes 
in which there was no available name for one of the constituents. Other new species 
known in collections have not been described because there are no cogent reasons 
at present why they need be named. 
I must advert in this Introduction to the classification, briefly referred to above, 
of that entomological Jack-of-all-trades, Giinther Enderlein. The paper of Enderlein 
(1936) on the Rutiliini was, luckily, his only venture into the Australian Tachinidae, 
except for his description of Microtropesa violacescens. It contains the usual lavish 
erection of unnecessary Enderleinian genera, 16 new genera in all, of which only one 
is given any recognition in my classification (this as a subgenus of Rutilia); I agree 
whole-heartedly with the late Dr Paramonov’s stricture that ‘these genera are 
unwarranted and very often misleading, as they are based on erroneously identified 
species of the early workers’. It should be added, however, that many of Enderlein’s 
species are valid, even if their descriptions are excessively perfunctory by 2oth 
century standards. 
The genera Oxyrutilia Townsend, Ola Paramonov and Ruya Paramonov do not 
appear in the present work although they were placed by their describers in the 
Rutiliini: the first of these genera is a synonym of Nemoraea Robineau-Desvoidy 
(tribe Nemoraeini) as Paramonov (1968 : 351) established, and the other two are 
excluded from the Rutiliini as here defined for the reasons given on p. 22. 
The figures accompanying the text of this paper have all been drawn personally. 
Those of the male genitalia are in the form of simple outlines with the hair vestiture 
omitted, as it is shape which is important for recognition and highlights the essential 
differences (or resemblances)—over-fussy drawings with every hair in place are 
usually not a virtue in Calyptrate taxonomy (unless of course the characters, as 
sometimes happens, reside in the vestiture itself). Some of the drawings are semi- 
schematic, notably those of chaetotaxy, which is often better represented by the 
pores than by the bristles themselves. 
Finally in this Introduction I must refer to my use of the subfamily name Pro- 
seninae. For some years this name has been current for the very large subfamily 

