124 R - w - CROSSKEY 



Senometopia to the Carcelia-like taxon that differs from Carcelia s.str. in having 

 the hind coxa bare on the posterodorsal surface and in lacking a v seta on the mid 

 tibia, although I rank the taxon at present as a subgenus within Carcelia and not 

 as a full genus in the manner of Townsend. Mesnil (1944a et seq.) and some other 

 authors use the name Eucarcelia Baranov for the taxon which simultaneously 

 has bare hind coxa and no mid tibial v seta, but there is no nomenclatural justifica- 

 tion for this, as even if the status of Senometopia is considered uncertain (because 

 of the loss of the type of the nominal type-species) there are still two other names 

 applying to the same taxon that pre-date Eucarcelia, viz. Eocarcelia Townsend 

 and Eocarceliopsis Townsend (see Crosskey, 19736 : 147). However, I do not 

 consider that there is any real doubt about the identity of Senometopia for nomen- 

 clatural purposes. Townsend (1916a : 8) designated Carcelia aurifrons Robineau- 

 Desvoidy as type-species, and the application of the name Senometopia therefore 

 depends on the identity of Robineau-Desvoidy's aurifrons. This, unfortunately, 

 cannot be objectively determined as the type is lost, but it has been very widely 

 accepted by specialists on Tachinidae such as Bezzi, Villeneuve and Townsend, 

 that aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy is a synonym of Carcelia excisa (Fallen) and 

 nothing in Robineau-Desvoidy's description of aurifrons seriously contra-indicates 

 this (see for example Bezzi in Katalog der Paldarktischen Dipteren 3 : 234-235 

 and Townsend in Manual of Myiology 11 : 159). There are no good reasons for 

 rejecting the long-established synonymy of aurifrons with excisa, and to do so only 

 leads to instability in nomenclature and to the pointless relegation of Senometopia 

 to the status of nomen dubium; it seems wholly preferable to accept the synonymy 

 of aurifrons and excisa, a course which establishes excisa as the valid name of the 

 type-species of Senometopia and establishes without doubt that the name applies 

 as the oldest valid name to the taxon that some recent authors have called Eucarcelia. 

 (Here I note that during the present work I have examined a syntype of excisa 

 from Fallen's collection, herein designated as lectotype, and can confirm that this 

 species has been correctly understood.) 



Other genera do not present the problems met with in Carcelia s.l. In Argyro- 

 phylax the included species (Crosskey, 1963a) are somewhat disparate, but are 

 homogeneous at least in having bare eyes (distinction from Carcelia) and in having 

 pyralid or hesperiid hosts. In Thecocarcelia one of the included species (linearifrons 

 Wulp) is perhaps wrongly assigned and its affinities might lie more with genera 

 such as Paradrino in the Sturmiini; it does not satisfactorily fit any described 

 sturmiine genus and is therefore retained in Thecocarcelia, with which it agrees most 

 notably in the nature of the ovipositor and in having hesperiid hosts. 



The little known genus Argyrothelaira is rather baffling and in most generic 

 keys to Carceliini would run out with Carcelia s.l. Indeed, one of its included 

 species (melancholica Mesnil) was originally described as a Carcelia. Its characters 

 are mainly those of Catacarcelia Townsend, and the two genus-group entities are 

 not very convincingly separable. Yet Argyrothelaira does not 'feel' like a Carcelia 

 s.l. (fellow specialists will know what is meant by this expression) and I therefore 

 retain it, with some doubts, as a valid genus. 



Moth caterpillars of a large variety of families are hosts of Carcelia s.l., pyralids 



