70 R. W. CROSSKEY 



Strictly speaking, if Westwood's (1840) type-designation for the genus Dexia 

 Meigen is accepted (as it should be under the current rules of nomenclature) the 

 name Dexia has priority over Phyllomya and the tribe should be known as the 

 Dexiini. However, only Townsend {Manual of Myiology and elsewhere) and a few 

 other authors under Townsend's influence have followed this practice, the great 

 majority of authors on Tachinidae preferring to use Phyllomya (Phyllomyini) for 

 the group under discussion and to reserve Dexia (Dexiini) for a quite different 

 major group of tachinids. Pending a resolution of this outstanding problem in 

 tachinid nomenclature by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 

 clature, it is considered far better for purposes of the present work to adopt the 

 'nomenclature of usage' and to accept Phyllomyini as the name for this tribe and 

 Phyllomya as the valid name of its type-genus, rather than to follow the Townsendian 

 practice. Reasoning for this is adduced elsewhere under the discussion of Prosenini 

 (seep. 45). 



Knowledge of Phyllomyini in the Oriental area is extremely meagre. Villeneuve 

 (1937a) described a species of Phyllomya from Szechwan, and Townsend (19366; 

 1939a) placed his genus Metopomintho in his tribe 'Dexiini' (i.e. Phyllomyini). 

 Mesnil (1953c) described Hypostena pubiseta from Burma which he compared to 

 Metopomintho, a comparison which is certainly apt: from my own examination of 

 the holotype of pubiseta I can see no characters that generically differentiate it from 

 Metopomintho and the species is accordingly here transferred from Hypostena to 

 Metopomintho. As regards Hypostena Meigen itself, Herting (1972 : 12) has shown 

 that its type-species (Tachina procera Meigen) is assignable to Phyllomya and there- 

 fore that Hypostena is a synonym of Phyllomya, and Mesnil (1975a : 1351) agrees 

 with this synonymy. The distinctions between Metopomintho and Phyllomya 

 (syn. Hypostena) are not very substantial (see accompanying key to genera) and the 

 definition of Phyllomya can perhaps justifiably be widened to embrace Metopomintho 

 as a synonym, as Mesnil (1975a : 1351-1352) has done while this work has been in 

 preparation. For the present, however, I prefer to maintain the two as distinct 

 genera. 



Villeneuve (1937a) described two high-altitude species from southern China that 

 he placed in the genus Macquartia Robineau-Desvoidy, but Mesnil (1972 : 1093; 

 1975a : 1351) has recently shown that these species (annularis and gymnops) are 

 assignable to the phyllomyine genus Gibsonomyia Curran that was previously only 

 recorded from North America. I have examined the lectotypes of the two species 

 concerned and concur fully with Mesnil's opinion. Both annularis and. gymnops are 

 clearly congeneric with G. washingtoniana (Bigot), the type-species of Gibsonomyia, 

 and this genus can therefore be confidently included in the present work. 



Gibsonomyia is not, however, as fully distinct from Phyllomya as Mesnil's (1975a : 

 1350-1351) key suggests. Mesnil (1972 : 1093) writes 'Die Gattung Gibsonomyia 

 unterscheidet sich von Phyllomyia [sic] Rob.-Desv. (s. Subtribus XXXVIII, Phyllo- 

 yina) dadurch, dass die Stirn der <$ <$ ausserordentlich schmal ist und weder mit oe 

 [proclinate orbital setae] noch mit einer Pravertikalen versehen ist', but this is not 

 a satisfactory distinction. It is the case that Phyllomya species as hitherto known 

 have a broad frons in the males that bears proclinate orbital and prevertical setae, 



