

REVISIONARY CLASSIFICATION OF RUTILIINI IOI 
blunt sternite tooth in stolida (Text-fig. 34) and the rather more prominent, sharper, 
tooth in assimilis (Text-fig. 35) are homologous, and good indicators of a recent 
_ common ancestry for these two species. The hypopygium itself is also similar in 
the two species in the degree of development of the surstyli: although these are 
_ different in shape, and quite conspicuously so, they are large and long in both species 
_ and in profile their apices reach to a level with the apices of the cerci. In Amphibolia 
_s.str. the fifth sternite lobes are simple and rounded as in other Rutiliini without 
_ trace of a tooth, and the surstyli are much shorter than the cerci; hence the genital 
structures provide the most positive morphological features for the differentiation of 
| Paramphibolia (syn. Chaetogastrina) and Amphibolia s.str. 
Paramonov (1954 : 275, 1968 : 367) assigned Malloch’s Chaetogastrina stolida to 
| the genus Chetogastey Macquart, and therefore sank the name Chaetogastrina into 
_ synonymy with Chetogaster, but he gave no arguments in support of this curious 
, conclusion. There is a slight superficial resemblance between stolida and, for exam- 
| ple, Chetogaster oblonga (Macquart), but otherwise there is almost nothing to suggest 
_ any close relationship between stolida and Chetogaster; stolida has supernumerary 
_ setae on the postalar callus, haired suprasquamal ridge, fully haired barette, and 
_ other features completely characteristic of the Amphibolia—Rutilia—Chrysopasta 
complex of genera, and it is here concluded that Paramonov’s placement of stolida 
(and therefore of Chaetogastrina) is much in error. Malloch (1929) was undoubtedly 
_ right to emphasize the close resemblance between stolida and Paramphibolia. 
The bristling of the atdomen in A. (P.) assimilis is so characteristic that this 
| species can be distinguished at a glance on this feature from all other Rutiliini; the 
_ setae are unusually thickened and abundant, there being a transverse row of many 
_ erect setae across the whole hind margin of T3, and exceptional strong development 
of slightly spiniform discal setae on T3 and T4 (these varying in number and 
arrangement but at least two always being present and very obvious on each tergite). 
Sometimes the strong discals of one or both intermediate tergites form a large cluster 
or an irregular transverse row. 
Specimens of both assimilis and stolida are rare in collections, but on available 
_ evidence the two species appear to be allopatric: assimilis is found in Tasmania and 
Victoria, and stolida in the mountainous parts of New South Wales. Nothing is 
_ known of the host-relations. 
INCLUDED SPECIES 
Amphibolia (Paramphibolia) assimilis (Macquart) comb. n. AUSTRALIA 
(Tasmania, Victoria). [Lectotype examined]. 
A. (P.) stolida (Malloch) comb. n. AvusTRALIA (New South Wales). [Holotype 
examined]. 
KEry To SPECIES OF THE SUBGENUS PARA MPHIBOLIA 
'1 Parafacials haired. Pleural regions of thorax with yellowish white to golden yellow 
hair (some dark hair on mid-mesopleuron). Abdomen mainly pale tawny brown 
($) to red-brown (2) with distinct median black vitta. Abdominal chaetotaxy 
mainly strongly spiniform. Surstyliof¢ genitalia as in Text-fig. 85. [Tasmania & 
Victoria] ; : is . F : ‘ : A, assimilis 
