70 R. W. CROSSKEY 
Discussion. This subgenus includes nearly one-third of the species of Rutilia s.1., 
and contains most of the large brown, blackish or purplish or dark green Australian 
species in which, even to the naked eye, the end of the abdomen appears excavate 
because of the median depression or groove in the last tergite. As early as 1775 
Fabricius had described a species of this subgenus with a name (R. retusa) which 
apparently alludes to the blunt-ended appearance given to these flies by the apical 
excavation, and several common eastern Australian species belonging in Donovanius 
were described by the other early authors, such as imusta Wiedemann, regalis 
Guérin-Méneville, vividinigra Macquart and sabrata Walker. 
One of the species undoubtedly belonging in this subgenus is R. pellucens Macquart, 
for which a neotype is designated in this paper. This species was cited by Enderlein 
(1936) as the type-species of his genus Menevillea, but there are some slight discrepan- 
cies between the characters cited by Enderlein for Menevillea and those shown by 
the true pellucens as identified by Macquart and fixed by neotype (for example 
Enderlein mentions the presence of marginal setae on T3 and ‘Discalmacrochaeten’, 
i.e. preapicals, on the scutellum). I have not seen the two female specimens deter- 
mined, and cited as pellucens by Enderlein (1936 : 416), but for the present am pre- 
suming Enderlein’s identification to be correct, in which case it follows that Mene- 
villea is a new synonym of Donovanius Enderlein. However, if it should prove 
(when Enderlein’s specimens are located) that his pellucens was misidentified, then 
the name Menevillea would fall as a synonym of Grapholostylum or just possibly 
Rutilia s.str., but in any event it is certainly a synonym of an older name. (It is 
therefore of no practical importance whether Enderlein identified pellucens correctly 
or not.) 
Enderlein’s genus Psavonia was characterized mainly by having a single pair of 
median marginal setae on T3 and by little else that notably distinguished it from 
Donovanius. It was based only on two female specimens (one herein designated 
lectotype). Examination of the lectotype of the type-species, bisetosa, shows that 
there are really no differences which justify holding Psaronia as a distinct taxon 
from Donovanius at supraspecific level and Psaronia is therefore placed as a synonym 
of the latter name. 
Reference needs to be made here to Enderlein’s genus Psaroniella, for which Rutiha 
castanipes Bigot was cited as type-species. In this case it is known positively that 
Enderlein misidentified the type-species, for I have seen the single female specimen 
(from Victoria, Koonwarra, Gippsland) that Enderlein cited as castanipes and 
found that it belongs to a completely different species from that described by Bigot. 
The true castanipes Bigot (type-material in BMNH examined) is a species of the 
subgenus Donovanius here defined, and the name is a junior synonym of R. inusta 
(Wiedemann) ; the specimen misidentified by Enderlein as castanipes actually belongs 
in the subgenus Rutilia s.str., and is a specimen of R. setosa Macquart. The generic 
name Psaroniella Enderlein is therefore a synonym of Rutilia s.str. and not of 
Donovantus. 
The affinities of subgenus Donovanius seem clearly to lie most closely with Chryso- 
rutilia. Both subgenera have four or more postalar setae, both have a very well 
developed fringe or comb of close-set setulae on the anterodorsal surface of the hind 
