
REVISIONARY CLASSIFICATION OF RUTILIINI 103 
repeated by Paramonov (1968 : 372), although there are some slight differences in 
the $ genitalia. 
The only other generic name involved in the synonymy of Chrysopasta is Roederia 
Brauer & Bergenstamm, which Townsend (1938 : 412) cited as an isogenotypic 
synonym of Chrysopasta with the type-species fixed by monotypy. When Brauer & 
Bergenstamm (1889 : 152) first described the genus Chrysopasta with its single 
species versicolor they placed the genus on its own in a family Réderiidae (‘Gruppe 
XLIX’ in their classification), without at that time describing a type-genus Roederia 
under this name; in their next work Brauer & Bergenstamm (1891 : 418) again 
listed Chrysopasta versicolor in ‘XLIX. Gruppe Roederiidae’ but still without 
a generic name Roederia. However in the next following part of their work Brauer 
& Bergenstamm (1893 : 98) published the name Roederia in a key to genera and 
Réderia in the generic index (op. cit. : 237), referring in the latter to the pages in 
their 1889 and 1891 works on which their Gruppe Réderiidae, containing only 
Chrysopasta, appeared. The name Chrysopasta does not appear in the generic key 
in the 1893 work, but this genus runs down to and conforms exactly with Roederia, 
_ and this fact together with the cross-references given in the 1893 index linking 
Roederia to Gruppe Réderiidae (and therefore to Chrysopasta, the only contained 
genus) leaves no doubt that Roederia Brauer & Bergenstamm and Chrysopasta are 
one and the same genus. I therefore agree with Townsend that Roederiaisa synonym 
of Chrysopasta and that versicolor is its type-species by monotypy. A possible 
explanation for the confusion over the names is that Brauer & Bergenstamm, after 
deciding upon the name Roederia for this Rutiliine, realized that the name was 
_ preoccupied by Roederia Mik, 1881, and changed to Chrysopasta—but that the name 
Roederia got published in the 1893 work by an oversight instead of Chrysopasta in 
the generic key. No replacement name is, of course, required for Roederia Brauer & 
Bergenstamm because of its junior objective synonymy with Chrysopasta. Para- 
monov (1968) omitted Roederia completely from his treatment of Chrysopasta, 
without explanation. 
Paramonov (1968 : 372) implied that Chrysopasta is so different from other 
_ Rutiliini when considered alongside some undescribed species known to him that it 
_might be necessary later to refer the genus to some other tribe. Though these 
undescribed forms to which he referred are not known to me it does not seem 
_ probable on the basis of elegans that Chrysopasta could justifiably be excluded from 
the Rutiliines. It possesses so many of the uniquely or at least typically Rutiliine 
characteristics that it seems to me to be unquestionably a member of this tribe: for 
example it shows in combination such features as more than two postalar setae, 
thickly hairy suprasquamal ridge, frequently hairy prosternum and prosternal 
membrane, hairy barette, dnd completely Rutiliine body facies, which together 
would hardly permit it to be included in any other tribe (as least so far as the tribes 
_of Prosenine Tachinidae are envisaged at present). 
Within the Rutiliini the genus seems to be most nearly allied to Amphibolia, more 
especially to the subgenus Paramphibolia, with which Chrysopasta possesses in general 
/more common features than with the other genera. There is much similarity in 
shape of the facial carina, the hairy suprasquamal ridge, the frequently strongly 



