88 R. W. CROSSKEY 
Townsend’s error arose from mis-recognition of the types of flavipes. Senostoma 
flavipes was described by Brauer & Bergenstamm (1889 : 126) from a gf anda & 
specimen from ‘Neu Holland’ and Engel (1925 : 375) recorded these specimens as 
‘Typen No. 38 u. 39’. At the same time Engel noted that the Vienna Museum 
contained two @ specimens collected by Thorey in Western Australia in 1864; it was 
these specimens that Townsend wrongly considered to be the types of flavipes 
Brauer & Bergenstamm. In his 1932 work, in which the name Prosenostoma was 
proposed, Townsend recorded a ‘Female Ht [holotype] in Wien, labelled ‘““‘Thorey: 
1864: Austra. occid.”’ ’ and in the 1938 work (Manual of Myiology, 7 : 420) he again 
recorded ‘Ht female from West Australia in Vienna’; Townsend’s notes in the United 
States National Museum, Washington, show that there were two specimens, both Q, 
with the data ‘Thorey 1864 Austra. occid.’, one being his ‘holotype’ in Vienna and the 
other a specimen taken by Townsend from the Vienna collection for his own genotype 
collection (the specimen that Townsend obtained from Vienna is still in U.S.N.M. and 
has been examined). The two 2 specimens from Western Australia mentioned by 
Townsend in his notes (one his supposed holotype) are the same two 9 as Engel had 
recorded as ordinary specimens without type-status. The true flavipes types are 
the specimens recorded by Engel as “‘Typen’ from “Neu Holland’; these have the 
parafacials bare and are a different species from the ‘Thorey 1864 Austra. occid.’ 
females, apparently being specimens of R. (M.) hirticebs Malloch. A lectotype is 
designated from the true type-material of flavipes elsewhere in this paper (see 
p. 121). Comparison of this specimen with the lectotype of fulviventris Bigot shows 
that flavipes must fall as a synonymy of fulviventris. 
Brauer & Bergenstamm (1889) completely misunderstood Macquart’s genus 
Senostoma (type-species S. variegata Macquart), which is not even a Rutiliine 
(Paramonov, 1968 : 384; Crosskey, 1971 : 291), and were seriously in error to place 
flavipes in this genus. In reality it belongs to the genus-group segregate later 
described by Townsend as Microrutia. Unfortunately both Engel (1925 : 374) 
and Malloch (1929 : 305, 1930 : 109) followed Brauer & Bergenstamm’s erroneous 
interpretation of Senostoma, and applied the name Senostoma to the concept which 
should correctly be called Microrutilia; hence the entry of Senostoma of authors, not 
Macquart, in the foregoing synonymy of Microrutilia. 
Microrutilia is an easily recognized subgenus because of the combination of small 
size, three postalar setae, conspicuously haired arista, very prominent nasute 
epistome and bulbous facial carina, and in the male the unusually prominent sternite 
5 and hypopygium. It appears to be most closely related to Grapholostylum with 
which it shares a large number of characters (compare diagnoses), and it is possible 
that new species discovered in the future may show intermediate characters making 
it necessary to amalgamate the two subgenera. At present Microrutilia is easily 
distinguished from Grapholostylum by the differently formed ¢ sternite 5 (Text-fig. 
32) and by the short membranous distal part of the aedeagus (which is shorter than 
the sclerotized proximal part); other differences include the lack of white spotting 
on thorax, the presence normally of two posterior intra-alar setae (though there is 
variability and some specimens of Microrutilia have only a single fost 7a seta as in 
Grapholostylum), and the more strongly developed proclinate orbital bristling (nor- 
