

REVISIONARY CLASSIFICATION OF RUTILIINI 113 
Buccal opening wide in both sexes, several times broader than facial carina. Genal dilation 
weakly developed, upper margin running obliquely from behind eye to lower margin of gena. 
Head pollinose, non-metallic. Arista pubescent. Palpi fully developed, sexually dimorphic 
(slender in males, conspicuously clavate in females). Proboscis with mentum parallel-sided in 
profile. Prosternum and prosternal membrane bare. Scutellum with apical pair of setae 
inserted only slightly lower than other marginal setae; total of only three pairs of marginals 
(fourth supernumerary pair rarely developed); disc of scutellum convex. Postalar callus with 
two strong setae. Postalar wall bare. Suprasquamal ridge bare. Upper calypter normal. 
| Tegula with normal long wiry posterior setulae. Costal base not explanate (but basal costal 
_ fringe sometimes strongly developed). Abdomen with marginal hair or at most only weakly 
developed setae on tergite venters; T3 with one pair of erect median marginal setae ; intermediate 
| tergites (T3 and T4) with one or two pairs of discal setae, these sometimes feebly developed or 
_absenting. T5 truncate subconical, without median depression (at most only trace of flattening 
at extreme apex). 
DisTRIBUTION. Australia only, from Tasmania and South Australia to Queens- 
land. Apparently unrepresented in Western Australia. 
Discussion. The correct nomenclature for this genus is considered below before 
giving any consideration to the characteristics and possible affinities. 
Malloch (1927, 1929, 1936), Enderlein (1936) and Paramonov (1954, 1968) have 
all referred to this genus by the name Chaetogaster, an incorrect subsequent spelling 
of Macquart’s name Chetogaster that seems to have been first published by Brauer & 
_Bergenstamm (1891 : 418, 1893 : 228); only Townsend (1932: 40, 1936 : 155, 
1938 : 424) has used the correct original spelling. It is necessary to consider this 
further, as both Chaetogaster and Chetogaster spellings exist in the literature for a 
genus of Oligochaete Annelids. The genus Chaetogaster in Annelids was described 
by Baer (1827 : 614) and the name is valid and in current use, but Gervais (1838 : 15) 
cited Baer’s genus as Chetogaster and Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus lists Gervais’ 
spelling of the name with the suffixed parenthetical comment ‘(pro Chaet-Baer 
1827)’—implying that Gervais’ spelling was an intentional emendation of Chaeto- 
_gaster Baer. However, Gervais’ work contains no evidence that he intentionally 
emended the spelling, and his use of the name Chetogaster is therefore an incorrect 
subsequent spelling under Article 33 of the International Code of Zoological Nomen- 
_clature; it therefore has no status in nomenclature and does not preoccupy Chetogaster 
Macquart, 1851, which name stands valid for the present genus of Tachinidae. 
_ Enderlein (1936) erected the genus Codium with Rutilia oblonga Macquart cited 
asthe type-species. Paramonov (1968 : 365) found that Enderlein had misidentified 
oblonga Macquart, and that the species that Enderlein called by this name is actually 
_Chetogaster violacea Macquart. During the preparation of the present work I have 
seen the specimens from Adelaide on which Enderlein based Codium, and can con- 
firm that they are violacea (not oblonga), as Paramonov said; the synonymy of 
Codium with Chetogaster established by Paramonov (1954) can also, therefore, be 
confirmed. It should be noted that the true oblonga Macquart also belongs to 
Chetogaster, and hence Codium is a synonym in any case, even if the cited nominal 
species is taken to be the type. 
Paramonov (1954) placed Chaetogastrina stolida Malloch, the type-species of 
Chaetogastrina, in the genus Chetogaster, thereby sinking the generic name Chaeto- 


