TACHINIDAE OF AUSTRALIA 157 
Unplaced species of Tachinidae 
armiceps Malloch, 1930b : 336 (Voriella). Holotype 9, WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Eradu (ANIC, 
Canberra) [examined]. — W.A. 
calliphon Walker, 1849 : 777 (Tachina). Holotype g [with puparium], ‘Picton’ (BMNH, 
London) [examined]. 
Austen (1907 : 339) noted that the type bears a label ‘Picton’ and that it is presumably 
therefore from ‘either New South Wales or Canada’. The type also bears (as Austen 
did not note) a BMNH accession label reading ‘47 109’ (i.e. the 1ogth collection of insects 
registered as received by BMNH in the year 1847). Examination of the register shows 
that this collection consisted of many miscellaneous insects from ‘W. Australia’, and 
suggests that calliphon must have an Australian provenance; pending other evidence 
(from later-collected material of the same species which will help to pinpoint the locality) 
the provenance of the holotype is accepted as Picton, Western Australia (though Picton, 
New South Wales is an alternative possibility). Up to now the holotype has remained 
unique; no specimens have been found that associate with it. 
despicienda Walker, 1861c : 306 (Tachina). Holotype 9 [bad condition], NEw SoutH WALES 
[?] (BMNH, London) [examined]. 
This species was published as from New South Wales and the holotype bears an old ink 
label ‘NSW’. No Australian specimens have been seen that associate with the holotype, 
which may not have had an Australian provenance. From the surviving characters of 
the holotype it appears to belong near the genus Mauritiodoria Townsend from Mauritius 
and might be the female of Mauritiodoria spinicosta (Thomson). 
diversa Walker, 1852 : 262 (Ocyptera ?). Holotype 9, ‘TAsMANIA’ (lost). 
This name remains a nomen dubium. The holotype is lost, and evidence that it originated 
from Tasmania is inconclusive (there are doubts about several of the provenances cited 
by Walker in the 1852 work). 
hyalipennis Macquart, 1855 : 122 (102) (Phoroceva). Type(s) g, SourH AusTRALIA: Adelaide 
(lost).-S.A. (Nomen dubium). 
As the type-material is lost this name remains completely enigmatic; it is a junior 
primary homonym of Phorocera hyalipennis Macquart, 1851, from Java. 
inconspicua Malloch, 1930b : 336 (Voriella). Holotype 9, New SoutH Waters: Sydney 
(SPHTM, Sydney) [examined]. — N.S.W. 
lateralis Macquart, 1851 : 176 (203) (Degeeria). Holotype g, Tasmania [publ. as ‘Oceania’] 
(MNHN, Paris) [examined].—Tasm. (Nomen dubium). 
The holotype of this species is in appalling condition, being wholly coated with a brittle 
deposit and completely concealed in mould. The name therefore remains enigmatic; 
it is a junior primary homonym of Degeeria lateralis Macquart, 1848, from North America. 
melas Bigot, 1889 : 256 (Exorista). Holotype 9, TAsMANIA (lost). (Nomen dubium). 
The holotype of this species was not in Bigot’s collection when that collection came 
to the BMNH and has not been seen since the time of description. Bigot added the word 
‘Detrita’ after his Latin description, and the holotype was presumably therefore in very 
bad condition when described. The name remains enigmatic. 
mucrocornis Macquart, 1851 : 174 (201) (Phoroceva). Holotype 9, ‘Tasmania’ (MNHN, 
Paris) [examined].— Tasm. (?). (? Blondeliini or Exoristini). 
The holotype of this nominal species is in such bad condition that few features can be 
made out. It appears, however, to be fairly certainly either a blondeliine or an exoristine). 
SUMMARY OF NOMENCLATURAL CHANGES ESTABLISHED 
IN THE CATALOGUE 
The nomenclatural changes established in the foregoing catalogue are summarized 
below in their appropriate categories. The order is alphabetical and in the tables 
of synonyms the invalid junior names are cited first. 
