Th 
pretation of the species regarding its systematic position has, so far as 
known to me, not yet been given by any one. Those who have 
expressed an opinion on this subject either possessed an insufficient 
knowledge in dipterology, or they were in doubt or made erroneous 
statements, since they drew their conclusions solely from the insuffi- 
cient descriptions and illustrations of the imago of this parasite. 
Aside from those determinations, according to which the Uji belongs 
to the Tachinide, we find in the literature three opinions regarding the 
genus to which this fly should be referred. 
The first statement is made by Cornalia, who, in the above-cited arti- 
cle, while discussing Guérin’s note* on Tachina oudji, says that this 
fly probably belongs to the subgenus Phorocera. 
During the years 1883-85 Prof. C. Sasaki, of Tokyo, Japan, carefully 
investigated this parasite and published the results in the Journal of 
the College of Science, Imperial University, Tokyo, 1886, vol. 1, part 1, 
without discussing, however, the question of the systematic position of 
the fly. 
In my review of this interesting paper in Wien. Ent. Zeit. (1888,p. 45) 
lL indicated that judging from the figure given by Sasaki the fly appeared 
to resemble Nemorea. But nothing that was certain could be said, 
since neither from the description nor from the figure could the char- 
acters necessary to the determination of the genus be made out. Sasaki’s 
description of the fly is, however, the best which we have so far. He 
ealls the parasite erroneously Ugimyia sericaria Rond. instead of seri- 
carice Rond. 
Mons. Bigot, of Paris, arrived at a different result. His conclusion, 
drawn from Sasaki’s figure, is that Ugimyia sericarie should be referred 
to the genus Leskia R. Desv. (cf. Bull. Soc. Ent. France, 1888, p. 1xxxix). 
However, a glance at Sasaki’s tab. I, Fig. 3, where the wings are repre- 
* As already stated there is in this note nothing regarding the systematic position 
of the Uji, but itis possible that Guérin expressed an opinion on this point in an 
article in Révue et Magaz. Zool., ser. 2, tom. 22, pp. 178-181, cited after Meinert, 
which is unknown tome. It is possible that Cornalia only thought of Phorocera, 
because Guérin had bred a species of this genus from the Ailanthus silkworm. It 
would seem to be of interest to reproduce here Cornalia’s words (Boll. Soc. Entom. 
Ital., 1870, p. 219): ‘Il Guérin infatti pote osservare nell baco dell’ Ailanthus, da lui 
introdotto in Europa, una mosca parasitta la cui larva vive nel bruco e nella crisa- 
lide di quello; e la Phorocera pumicata Meig. La Saturnia cynthia dunque originaria 
della China, ha qui pure fra noi la sua malattia del moscone.” I also quote here what 
Cornalia says in connection with these remarks: ‘‘E qui opportuno il dire che il conte 
Castellani, il quale’fu in China in cerca di buon seme del bombice del gelso, nel suo 
libretto sul’ Educazione del baco da seta in China (Firenze, 1860, pp. 189-148), accenna 
come anche nell’impero chinese il baco del gelso sia soggetto ad asser vittima di una 
mos¢a, che ne fa strage, mosca che il Guérin chiamo Tachina castellanii. Dalla des- 
crizione che il viaggiatore italiano fa del parasitto non si potrebbe ritenere differente 
la specie giapponese dalla chinese; ma cio solo potranno decidere ulteriori e precise 
osservazioni. Secondo Adams l’Ugi attaca al Giappone anche la Saturnia (della 
quercia) Yama-mai, diffuse pure in Europa per opera del Guérinu.” I believe that 
Tachina castellanii Guér. is only a manuscript name. 
9676—No. 3 
3. 
3) 
