} 

REVISIONARY CLASSIFICATION OF RUTILIINI 89 
mally two pairs in Microrutilia females and one or none in Grapholostyium) and 
sternopleural bristling (commonly 2 + 1 sternopleurals in Microrutilia and almost 
always only 1 + 1 in Grapholostylum). 
An interesting feature of the chaetotaxy of Microrutilia (apart from the unusually 
long and strong bristles) is the constancy of the posterior dorsocentral setae. In 
most Rutilia s.1. the number of fost dc is rather variable within species, and therefore 
within any particular subgenus, and the degree of development may differ between 
| sexes or on one side of the scutum from the other in the same specimen, but in 
Microrutilia there are very constantly four long strong post dc setae regularly spaced 
(as they would be in a higher Tachinid with this number of post dc setae) ; the same 
_ constancy of four unusually long strong post dc setae (combined with four rather 
| strongly developed humeral setae) occurs in Grapholostylum, and perhaps is another 
indicator of close phyletic relationship between the two subgenera in spite of the 
rather different male sexual characters of Microrutilia and Grapholostylum. 
Some species of Microrutilia have a superficial resemblance to some Chrysorutilia 
species because of their metallic green upper occiput and postbuccae, and because 
_ of the very convex non-sulcate end of the abdomen (T5); but the presence of three 
| postalar setae (instead of 4 or 5 as in Chrysorutilia), the lack of pteropleural hair 
anterior to the post stpl seta, and the short sparse hairing of the suprasquamal ridge 
| (contrasted with the long dense bushy hairing of Chrysorutilia) readily distinguishes 
Microrutilia from Chrysorutilia. In Microrutilia, also, there are strong erect setae 
present among the hair of abdominal T5, whereas in almost all Chrysorutilia species 
this tergite bears fine hair only. The shape of the ¢ sternite 5 is also different in the 
two subgenera. 
Correct association of the sexes in Microrutilia is especially difficult, particularly 
| as the males and females of many if not most of the species (Hirticeps is an exception) 
_ appear to be sexually dimorphic in leg colour; females have the legs reddish yellow, 
| but males have the legs partly or completely darkened (mainly black or brownish 
_ black at least on the coxae, parts of the femora and the tarsi). Some of the nominal 
| species in the subgenus are based on ¢ primary types and others on 9 types, and it is 
| well-nigh impossible at present (in the absence of bred material or good series 
collected in the same place at the same time) to be sure how the females correlate 
| with the males; it is almost certain, though, that some of the names involved are 
_ synonyms of each other. Some authors have already established synonymies based 
on guess-work correlations: Brauer (1899 : 513) placed flavipes as a synonym of 
| minor; Austen (1907 : 345) placed liris as a synonym of minor; Engel (1925 : 374) 
‘placed flavipes as a synonym of ruficornis; and Townsend (1938) accepted Austen’s 
and Engel’s synonymies. During the present work it has been found that there is a 
_ very difficult complex of species involved that are all very closely alike, though 
differing on male genitalia, and that it is almost impossible to say which females 
associate with the different species recognizable on male genitalia. Although at 
least one of the previously established synonymies is almost certainly correct, viz. 
_ that of liris with minor, it seems best to regard all the names based upon female 
types as valid for distinct species until such time as really good evidence is available 
for positive association of males and females; in the absence of such evidence I here 
