36 
Psyche 
[February 
Hinea, Lesneus, Orgizomyia, Phara, Pronopes, Rhigioglossa, 
Scarphia, Subpangonia, and Thaumastocera are precinctive. 
* * 
* 
The Tabanidse are a very natural and remarkably uniform 
group of flies, and, whereas there has never been any doubt as to 
the limits of the family, its further subdivision is much more 
difficult. 
Loew’s arrangement into two subfamilies has been generally 
adhered to and entomologists have been slow in recognizing the 
new generic divisions that have been proposed from time to 
time. This is clearly shown by the unsuccessful attempts at 
splitting up the extensive genus Tahanus, of which about 1150 
species are known at present. In 1909, Ad. Lutz (Zool. Jahrb' 
Suppl., X, p. 624) proposed raising Loew’s subfamilies to the rank 
of major divisions. The Opisthacanthse, with tibial spurs at the 
hind tibiae, he divided into three subfamilies: Pangoniinae, 
Silviinae, and Chrysopinae. The Opisthanoplae, without tibial 
spurs, also formed three subfamilies: Diachlorinae, Lepisela- 
ginae, and Tabaninae. Among the Tabaninae he further dis- 
tinguished the Tabaninae haplocerae, with toothed third antennal 
joint, and the Tabaninae schistocerae, with branched third an- 
tennal joint. Ad. Lutz’ subdivisions, however, have not all 
been very clearly defined and, as they were evidently based on a 
study of South American insects only, they have not been 
accepted by other entomologists. 
Quite recently Enderlein has come forward with a much 
more pretentious scheme of classification, intended to be of 
universal application.^ He also adopts Loew’s two major 
subdivisions of the family, for which he uses the names proposed 
by Ad. Lutz. 
In the Opisthacanthse he recognizes four subfamilies sep- 
arable as follows :2 
^G. Enderlein. Ein neues Tabanidensystem. Mitt. Zool. Mus. Berlin, 
X, 2, 1922, pp. 333-351. 
^Throughout his key Enderlein uses the word “Fiihlergeissel” for the 
third antennal segment and not for the terminal st}de, but I have corrected 
this oversight. 
