!944] Further Studies of the Tabanidoe 19 
23. Tabanus (Neotabanus) johannesi Fairchild (1942, Ann. Ent. 
Soc. America, 35, p. 164, pi. 1, fig. 6; 9 8). 
Nariva Swamp, female (R. C. Shannon). 
This specimen was compared with a paratype from Brazil 
The species is known also from Paraguay. 
24. Tabanus (Neotabanus) amplifrons Krober (= Tabanus tri- 
lineatus J. Bequaert, 1940; not of Latreille). 
St. Augustine, several females and males, one male taken at 
light (E. McC. Callan; A. M. Adamson; P. C. Atteck). Ta- 
mano, female (R. C. Shannon); Toco, 2 males (R. C. Shan- 
non); El Dorado Village, 2 males (M. V. Beattie); San 
Fernando, male (C. B. Williams). 
It is the species which I called T. trilineatus in my 1940 
paper. As shown by G. B. Fairchild (1942, Ann. Ent. Soc. 
America, 35, p. 178), Latreille’s T. trilineatus appears to be un- 
recognizable. T. amplifrons is known also from Texas, Guate- 
mala, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela and the Amazon Basin of 
Brazil. In Trinidad it is one of the most common horseflies. 
According to Dr. E. McC. Callan, the males are often observed 
in numbers, sometimes even in hundreds, flying and hovering 
over roadways from about 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. 
25. Tabanus (Neotabanus) vittiger var. guatemalanus Hine ( = 
Tabanus carneus J. Bequaert, 1940; not of Bellardi). 
Moruga, female (R. C. Shannon). The females from Trin- 
idad and Siparia, Trinidad, referred to T. carneus in my 1940 
paper were guatemalanus ; but the Trinidad male of carneus 
was that of T. lineola var. carneus. 
The var. guatemalanus is widely distributed in Central and 
northern South America. 
In a former paper (1940, Rev. de Entomologia, 11, pp. 272 
and 352), I identified T. vittiger Thomson (1868) with Tabanus 
truquii Bellardi (1859) ; but Dr. G. B. Fairchild does not agree 
with this. He regards Bellardi’s species as unrecognizable, al- 
though possibly the same as Tabanus amplifrons Krober. He 
also treats the Antillean specimens of T. vittiger as a distinct 
race, which he calls subsp. caymanicus (1942, Ann. Ent. Soc. 
America, 35, p. 180) ; but the distinction between guatemalanus 
and caymanicus seems to be too finely drawn and based mainly 
on distributional data, not on reliable characters. 
