304 
Psyche 
[December 
30, p. 21, February 1923) although later in the same year I have 
correctly referred it to Ecitophora (Zoologica, New York, vol. 
3, p. 439; (October 1923). As Schmitz has since pointed out on 
numerous occasions Ecitophora possesses well developed ocelli 
while these are entirely lacking in Ecitomyia. 1 
The Costa Rican species is most closely related to its nor- 
thern congener, E. wheeleri Brues, but differs in chsetotoxy and 
considering its different host relations must I think be regarded 
as a distinct species. 
Ecitomyia manni sp. nov. 
$ . Length 0 . 7-0 . 8 mm. Very similar to E. wheeleri. 
Eyes decidedly smaller in diameter than the third antennal 
joint. Post-antennal bristles large and strong, as long as the 
tennal joint; lateral bristles of the second and third row very 
weak, much smaller than the median ones. Lateral thoracic 
bristle nearly as long as the dorsum of thorax (.075 mm. as 
compared to .063 mm. in E. wheeleri). Wing as long as the 
dorsum, its bristles about 25/x in length (compared to 13 m in E. 
wheeleri). Second abdominal tergite not noticeably narrowed 
basally. 
Type and two paratypes from Estrella Valley, Costa Rica 
(W. M. Mann). These were taken by Dr. Mann in April, 1924 
in a nest of Pheidole. 
1 In his original description Schmitz speaks of the type of Ecitophora 
having been bleached in the preservative fluid and of the extreme difficulty in 
detecting the bristles of the front. In Psyche (l. c.) I have suggested that 
possibly Schmitz might have mistaken the insertions of bristles for the ocelli. 
This remark was certainly not intended as any criticism of this author’s uni- 
formly painstaking work on these extremely small insects. ' The writer ap- 
preciates only too well the difficulties of studying them when imperfectly 
preserved or when injured before or after preservation or even when the 
mounting does not allow one to turn the specimen into the proper position to 
determine minute characters. On finding finely preserved specimens agreeing 
almost exactly with Schmitz’s description of Ecitophora comes, but without 
ocelli, I naturally supposed that the ocelli described were really the points 
where bristles had been inserted. Father Schmitz has however assured me 
that the condition of the type allows three ocelli to be distinguished. I wish 
therefore to make an apology for my seemingly very hasty remark which as 
indicated above was in no way intended to suggest any carelessness on the 
part of a most accurate observer. Further work also attests the accuracy of 
Schmitz’s first observation as additional specimens of E. comes have since been 
collected and other species discovered. 
