124 R. W. CROSSKEY 
Rutilia decora Guérin-Méneville, 1843 : 266. 
NEOTYPE g. AvusTRALIA, Queensland, Burpengary (T. L. Bancroft) (in British Museum 
(Natural History), London). 
This species was described from a single female from ‘Nouvelle-Hollande’. The holotype is 
lost, and Townsend’s (1932 : 38) statement of a female holotype in Paris is in error: there are 
no specimens remaining in Paris of decora among Guérin-Méneville’s material (which is scattered 
in Macquart’s collection), but there are specimens standing in Macquart’s collection under the 
name decova which are later determined material. The description of decora is very full and 
detailed and certainly applies to a species of the splendida-complex of Chrysorutilia, and Malloch 
(1928c : 660), Townsend (1932 : 38-39) and Enderlein (1936 : 407) treated decora as a synonym 
of splendida (though Enderlein accorded it varietal status). In the present revision it is con- 
sidered best to apply the name to a species which is very closely allied to splendida but has 
distinctly different male genitalia (see key and Text-figures); this recovers the name decorva 
from synonymy and obviates the need to add a new name to the literature. It is considered 
far better to bring the old name decora into use for a valid species (which exactly fits the original 
description) than to describe a new species unnecessarily. 
Rutilia durvillei Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 : 321. 
NEOTYPE g. Austraria, New South Wales, Hawkesbury River, 28.xi.1914 (in British 
Museum (Natural History), London). 
Robineau-Desvoidy described this nominal species from a male specimen collected at Port 
Jackson (i.e. Sydney harbour) by Captain Dumont-Durville and given to him by Guérin- 
Méneville. The neotype specimen is from the Hawkesbury River, which enters the sea just 
north of Port Jackson. Robineau-Desvoidy’s description refers to a specimen closely resembling 
vivipava Fabricius and having a bluish trace on the thoracic dorsum and a series of stiff bristles 
on each abdominal segment (‘une série de poils raides et noirs au sommet de chaque segment’). 
This description makes it clear that the type had conspicuous bristling on the third abdominal 
tergite (apparent second segment) as well as on the other segments, and from this statement 
(plus the remainder of the description) it seems certain that the name durvillei alluded to a 
species of the subgenus Rutilia s. str. In this subgenus only vivipara (the type-species) has the 
abdominal bristling as bold and conspicuous as Robineau-Desvoidy’s description implies, and I 
believe it to be almost certain that the durvillei type was a specimen of vivipara (some speci- 
mens of the latter have a slight bluish or purplish tinge on the scutum). I have therefore 
designated as neotype of durviilei a male specimen of vivipara (a specimen considered unquestion- 
ably conspecific with the neotype of vivipava herein designated also); the name durvillei is 
therefore disposed of in synonymy with vivipara, which is a better course than bringing the 
name into use on shaky evidence for some valid species. 
Rutilia formosa Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 : 320 (name attributed to ‘Donavan’ in error). 
NEOTYPES AustrRa.ia, New South Wales, near Lake George, 25.xi.1953 (S. J. Paramonov) 
(in Australian National Insect Collection, Canberra). 
Robineau-Desvoidy described this species from a specimen of unstated sex that stood in 
Count Dejean’s collection from ‘Nouvelle-Hollande’. Under his name Rutilia formosa, 
Robineau-Desvoidy attributed the name to Donovan with the statement ‘Musca formosa, 
Donavan’ and after the description wrote ‘Donavan l’a décrite et figurée parmi les insectes 
remarquables de ce pays’ (i.e. Australia). It appears that Robineau-Desvoidy wrote ‘foymosa’ 
in error, as Donovan described and figured only one species of Rutiliine, namely Musca splendida; 
there is no such nominal species as foymosa Donovan. Although Robineau-Desvoidy’s descrip- 
tion may have been intended as a redescription of splendida Donovan there is no conclusive 
evidence of this, and (in common with other workers on the group) I therefore accept Rutilia 
formosa Robineau-Desvoidy as a nominal species originally based upon a type-specimen. This 
type-specimen, along with all the other Diptera from Count Dejean’s collection, is now lost and 
there are no specimens in Robineau-Desvoidy’s collection or any other authoritatively identified 
specimens by which the identity of foymosa R.-D. can be determined. Robineau-Desvoidy’s 
