


REVISIONARY CLASSIFICATION OF RUTILIINI 121 
here designated as lectotype. LECTOTYPE g. Inponesia, Moluccas, Batjan [publ. as 
‘Batchian’] (A. R. Wallace) (in British Museum (Natural History), London). 
Senostoma flavipes Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1889 : 126 (58). 
Brauer & Bergenstamm described both the g and the @ of this species, and the original material 
consisted therefore of at least two syntypes; the locality was cited as ‘Neuholland’. Engel 
(1925 : 375) saw the original material and referred to it as ‘g and 2 Neu Holland (Typen No. 38 
u. 39)’, clearly indicating that the syntypes consisted of one of each sex. The syntype cannot 
now be found in the Vienna Museum collection, but the 9 syntype is still present there: it is here 
designated as lectotype. LECTOTYPE 9. [‘New HoLtranp’] (in Naturhistorisches Museum, 
Vienna). 
The lectotype has a square white label inscribed in slightly faded ink ‘Dup. n 39’, the number 
39 conforming with the number cited for the 2 syntype by Engel. 
Townsend (1932, 1938) misunderstood the type-material of flavipes and the specimens from 
Western Australia cited by him as ‘Holotype’, and in his notes in the U.S. National Museum, 
Washington, as ‘Holotype’ and ‘Paratype’ have no type-status (see further discussion of this 
in the treatment of the subgenus Microrutilia). 
Direct comparison of the lectotype ? of flavipes Brauer & Bergenstamm with the lectotype 2 
of fulviventris Bigot shows that the types are in perfect agreement and unquestionably conspeci- 
fic. Hence the name flavipes is sunk as a new synonym of fulviventris (see p. 90). 
Tachina inusta Wiedemann, 1830 : 306. 
Described from an unstated number of specimens of unstated sex from ‘Port Jackson in 
Neuholland’ (i.e. Sydney), and recorded by Wiedemann as in the Berlin Museum. Enderlein 
(1936 : 412) found four ? specimens collected by Eschscholtz at Port Jackson which he recorded 
as ‘Typen Widemann’s’, of which two have'been examined and one here designated as lectotype. 
LECTOTYPE 2. AvustTrRaLia, New South Wales, Sydney [publ. as ‘Port Jackson’] (Eschscholtz) 
(in Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin). Paralectotype: one 9, same 
data as lectotype (MNHU, Berlin). 
The lectotype bears a rectangular faded bluish-grey label with the words ‘P. Jackson. Esch.’, 
and another faded bluish grey label reading ‘inusta Tachin. inusta Wied.’, the writing on both 
labels probably being Wiedemann’s (as it closely resembles the writing on Wiedemann’s type 
labels in Copenhagen); in addition the lectotype has a printed label ‘3553’. The paralectotype 
is labelled ‘Australien Port Jackson Eschscholtz’ in Enderlein’s writing. 
NEOTYPE DESIGNATIONS 
The types of some of the Rutiliini described by the early workers (i.e. before 1850) 
are lost and have never been reported in the literature as having been seen by 
anyone since the time of description. The type-material is considered to be cer- 
tainly lost in the case of fifteen nominal species described by Donovan, Fabricius, 
Guérin-Méneville, Macquart, Robineau-Desvoidy and Walker. Most of the names 
involved apply to, or are believed on all available evidence to apply to, distinct 
species and to be taxonomically valid; several of them have been in use for many 
years, but have not always been applied to the same species. Some of the supposedly 
single species to which some of these old names have been applied are now known 
to be complexes of very closely allied species, and to disentangle past confusion (as 
well as to obviate the possibility of future misidentifications) it is considered highly 
desirable to establish neotypes so that the meanings of the names can be fixed. 
Opinions vary among taxonomists on the desirability of neotypes: some workers 
maintain that they are scarcely, if ever, justified and others regard them as desirable 
for every case where there is no surviving original type-material. I take an inter- 
