TACHINIDAE OF AUSTRALIA 165 
22.11.1930 (W. L. Morgan) (in New South Wales Department of Agriculture, 
Rydalmere). Paralectotype: 1 3, same data as lectotype (in NSWDA, Rydalmere) ; 
I g, New South Wales, Narara [publ. as ‘Worara’], I1.xi.193I [publ. as ‘30’] 
(W. L. Morgan) (NSWDA, Rydalmere). 
The lectotype bears an ink label reading ‘Bred from Aulacophora hilaris adult 
coll. Binniguy 22.2.30. W. L. Morgan’ and the condition is fair except for some 
collapse of the eyes and scutum and loss of apical half of left wing. One 
paralectotype is labelled exactly as the lectotype and has its associated puparium 
(the abdomen is gummed separately to the card mount); the other paralectotype 
is labelled in ink ‘Bred from Aulacophora hilaris adult coll. Narara 11.11.31 
W. L. Morgan’. 
The lectotype and paralectotypes each bear a name label in Hardy’s writing 
that reads ‘Zosteromyia morgani Hardy PARATYPE’ and a printed label 
‘Department of Agriculture, Sydney, N.S.W., Australia’. 
SUMMARY OF AUSTRALIAN NOMINAL SPECIES FOR WHICH TYPES 
ARE LOST OR MISSING 
The foregoing catalogue contains the names of 487 nominal species-group taxa 
described from Australia (up to 1973). Primary types are known to exist for 
458 of these taxa, but are lost or have not been located for the remaining 29 taxa. 
The lost or missing types fall into two categories that are differentiated in the lists 
of missing types that follow. The first category is that of types that can 
confidently be asserted to be lost: in these cases (all of them nominal species 
described by nineteenth-century authors) the types have never been found by later 
workers and no specimens that could be the types have been found during personal 
searches of likely depositories carried out for the preparation of this catalogue. 
The second category is that of types which have not been found during the 
preparation of this work but which may still exist: in these cases (mainly nominal 
species described by twentieth-century authors) it is probable that types still exist 
and will eventually be found in some small collection or unexpected place (those 
of the two species described by Rondani, for example, may well be in a small 
Italian museum but appear certainly not to be in Florence, Naples, or Genoa). 
The distinction here made between ‘lost’ and ‘missing’ types is emphasized to 
assist future revisionary work: it is considered that later workers may safely 
assume that the types listed as ‘lost’ are truly lost or destroyed and will never be 
found; on the other hand, searches will need to be made for the types listed as 
‘missing’ whenever the relevant groups are studied in detail. The lists are 
alphabetical under the original binomina. 
(a) Nominal species of which the types are lost 
Carcelia tasmanica Robineau-Desvoidy 
Dexia hyria Walker 
Exorista melas Bigot 
