100 R. W. CROSSKEY 
separable from papuana (a specimen in the BMNH collection from Queensland stand- 
ing under the name ignorata and having the bright yellow head has the abdominal 
pattern exactly as in papuana, and might perhaps belong to a different species: the 
specimen is of interest in showing that flies with an abdominal pattern that is an 
exact match with that of the New Guinea species occur in mainland Australia, even 
though quite different on other characteristics). 
Subgenus PARAMPHIBOLIA Brauer & Bergenstamm stat. n. 
Paramphiboia Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1891 : 389 (85). Type-species: Rutilia assimilis 
Macquart, 1851, by monotypy. 
Chaetogastrina Malloch, 1929 : 313. Type-species: Chaetogastrina stolida Malloch, 1929, by 
original designation. Syn. n. 
Diacnosis. Thorax without bold white pollen spots. Calyptrae semi-translucent yellowish 
or brownish. Scutellum with apical setae weak, much smaller than other marginal setae and 
sometimes not developed at all. Abdomen not patterned in contrasting black and white- 
pollinose areas. Abdominal chaetotaxy strong to slightly spiniform. Lobes of ¢ fifth sternite 
with distinct tooth or small sharp prong subapically on inner edge. g hypopygium with sur- 
styli as long as the cerci. 
DISTRIBUTION. South-eastern Australia and Tasmania only. 
Discussion. This subgenus contains only two known species, Amphibolia 
(Paramphibolia) assimilis and A. (P.) stolida (Malloch), which are the type-species 
of Paramphibolia and Chaetogastrina respectively. Malloch’s description of Chaeto- 
gastrina consisted only of the sentence “This genus is very similar to Paramphibolia, 
agreeing with it in structure of the head and thorax, but there are no parafacial 
hairs below level of bases of antennae’, from which it is evident that Malloch’s only 
criterion for generic separation lay in the bare or haired parafacials. There is no 
doubt that in the Rutiliini as a whole there are many very closely allied species which 
differ in the degree of hairiness of the parafacials, some species belonging obviously 
to the same distinctive group having them bare, others partially haired, and others 
completely haired. In the present work no subgeneric or generic significance is 
attached to bareness or hairiness of the parafacials, a character considered to be 
specific only (though a few subgeneric segregates may have the same condition in all 
or most of the included species). Since there are no other notable differences between 
assimilis and stolida (though their superficial appearance is different because of 
different body and hair colouring and because of the different degree of development 
of the abdominal setae) these two species are here treated as unquestionably con- 
generic and consubgeneric; hence the name Chaetogastrina is placed as a new 
synonym of Paramphibolia. 
The new synonymy of Chaetogastrina with Paramphbolia is supported by evidence 
from the fifth sternite and hypopygium of the male (which were not examined by 
Malloch). In both stolida and assimilis each lobe of the fifth sternite is produced 
on the subapical part of the inner margin into a small tooth, a development that is 
found (to the best of my knowledge) nowhere else in the Rutiliini. In fact through- 
out most of the Proseninae the lobes of the male fifth sternite are simple rounded struc- 
tures without any specialized developments. There is no doubt that the small 
