14 Psyche [March- June 
figs. 6 and 8). The second tergite of the abdomen bears a small 
median apical pale spot. 
A renewed study of these specimens and of some other ma- 
terial in our collections has led me to separate pallidejemorata 
as a distinct species. The frons is considerably broader than in 
auro guttata] the second antennal segment is relatively shorter 
and the first somewhat swollen ; the hyaline area in the fourth 
and fifth posterior cells touches the discal cell; there is no trace 
of a hyaline spot near the base in the first submarginal cell ; and 
the apical dark streak of the wing is more deeply notched at the 
base by the hyaline area, so that its apical portion appears wid- 
ened. The three females from Quintana Roo, Mexico, which I 
called C. incisa in my paper on the Yucatan Tabanidse (1932, 
Jl. New York Ent. Soc., 39, for 1931, p. 535) were really 
C. pallidejemorata , so that the species appears to be widely 
distributed. 
The specimens which I listed from Trinidad under C. auro- 
guttata in my earlier paper (1940, p. 448) are not now available, 
so that I am unable to place them under either that species or 
C. pallidejemorata. There is even a possibility that the Trin- 
idad cotype of auroguttata was really a pallidejemorata and that 
Krober’s drawings of auroguttata were made from the Colombia 
cotype (both cotypes are at the British Museum). For this rea- 
son I omit provisionally the true auroguttata from fhe Trinidad 
list. The female from Costa Rica (Carillo), which I reported in 
1940, was Krober’s true auroguttata and this is also true of the 
Panama records published by Pechuman (1937, Rev. de En- 
tomologia, 7, p. 136) as C. auroguttata var. pallidejemorata , and 
by G. B. Fairchild (1942, Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington, 44, p. 4) 
as C. incisa. 
Whether Chrysops incisus Macquart (1845, Mem. Soc, R. 
Sci. Agric. Arts Lille, for 1844, p. 172, PI. IV, figs. 12-12a; 9 ; 
“New Grenada’ 7 ) was C. auroguttata Krober, C. pallidejemorata 
Krober or some other species (? melcena Hine) appears impos- 
sible to decide, unless Macquart’s type could be found. The 
description is vague (the yellow stripes on the sides of the 
mesonotum are not mentioned) and the drawings are too crude 
to be reliable. 
5. Chrysops bulbicornis Ad. Lutz. 
St. Augustine, 2 females (W. Cook; one of the specimens had 
