


REVISIONARY CLASSIFICATION OF RUTILIINI 87 
only one ing’, sometimes small third seta in front of main pair. Scutum without supernumerary 
prescutellar setae. Postalar callus with three strong setae. Suprasquamal ridge haired. 
Scutellum convex, not at all flattened before apex; 4-5 pairs of marginal setae (occasional 
specimen with three only on one side) ; with row of preapical setae in front of marginals. Ptero- 
pleuron not haired in front of level of posterior sternopleural seta. Two or three sternopleural 
setae (I + 10r2-+ 1). Prosternum bare; prosternal membrane normally bare, rarely one or 
two hairs. Hind tibia with short fringe or with irregular sparse long fringe, with one main ad 
seta if fringe close-set but otherwise with several distinct ad setae, with three pd setae (occasional- 
ly more). Last abdominal tergite without median depression, evenly convex across its width 
and sides strongly tapering posteriorly, hypopygium very prominent. T3 without median 
marginals or with a few weakly developed; T3 with lateral marginal setae. T5 with long erect 
discal setae. Sternite 5 of g downwardly prominent and conspicuous in profile, each lobe 
angulate posterolaterally (Text-fig. 32) and very slightly concave on its hind margin. ¢ genitalia 
with distal membranous part of distiphallus shorter than sclerotized proximal part, surstyli 
broad basally and slightly tapering to blunt end (Text-figs 60-63), sharply pointed at tip in 
nigviceps. [Small or very small species of coppery green, emerald, or blue-green colour in 
which scutellum often violaceous and male often with tawny yellow abdomen showing black 
median vitta and cupreous or green tinges to ground-colour]. 
DIsTRIBUTION. Eastern Australia from Tasmania to Queensland, probably also 
Western Australia. 
Discussion. This subgenus is aptly named for, as redefined here, it still contains 
the smallest species of Rwutilia s.l., and R. (M.) minor—the type-species—is the 
smallest of all Rutiliini (as little in some specimens as 6-7 mm long). Enderlein 
(1936) erected the genus Eucompsa for R. minor, but evidently realized before final 
publication of his paper that Townsend (1915) had already proposed the genus 
Microrutilia for the same species: thus Eucompsa is proposed on p. 400 of Enderlein’s 
(1936) work and promptly sunk into synonymy with Microrutilia on p. 415 of the 
same work. Apart from being a junior isogenotypic synonym the name Eucompsa 
Enderlein, 1936, is also a junior homonym of one of Enderlein’s own generic names, 
being preoccupied by Enderlein’s (1922) use of Eucompsa in the Tabanidae. Even 
for Enderlein it was unusually careless nomenclature to publish a junior objective 
synonym and a junior homonym in the same name. 
The type-species of Pogonagalmia Enderlein, namely R. hirticeps Malloch, differs 
_ from typical Microrutilia only in having the parafacials haired and in slight shape 
differences (considered specific only) in the g cerci and surstyli, and none of these 
distinctions would justify separating hirticeps from Microrutilia; hirticeps is here 
considered to be consubgeneric with minor and the genus-group name Pogonagalmia 
_ therefore goes into synonymy with Microrutilia. 
Townsend’s generic name Prosenostoma is based upon a misidentification of 
Brauer & Bergenstamm’s species Senostoma flavipes, and Townsend’s (1932 : 39; 
1938 : 420) flavipes (described in the Manual of Myiology as having haired para- 
_ facials) is the species hirticeps Malloch. The true flavipes Brauer & Bergenstamm 
has bare parafacials, and is a quite different species. However, both Brauer & 
| Bergenstamm’s true flavipes and Townsend’s misidentified flavipes (=hirticeps) are 
here treated as consubgeneric, and no nomenclatural difficulty arises from Town- 
,_ send’s misuse of the name flavipes: Prosenostoma enters into new synonymy with 
Microrutilia. 
