1946] 
69 
Tabanidae of Colombia 
( macrodonta Macquart), D. potator Wiedemann, D. guttipennis 
Wiedemann, D. macula ( scutellata ) Macquart, D. luctuosa 
Macquart, D. rufipennis Macquart.” As the genus was not de- 
fined in 1909, the rules of nomenclature might be interpreted so 
as to make the 1909 name a nomen nudum , notwithstanding the 
citation of several described species. The first valid use of 
Dicladocera , according to the prevailing rules, appears to be by 
Ad. Lutz in 1912 (Comm. Linhas Telegr. Estrat. Matto Grosso 
Amazonas, Annexo No. 5, Hist. Nat., Zool., Tabanideos, p. 4), 
when he described the new species Dicladocera unicolor. The 
correct genotype would then be D. unicolor , by monotypy, as 
Bequaert stated in 1924 (Psyche, XXXI, p. 28). 
Enderlein in 1922 (Mitt. Zool. Mus. Berlin, X, pt. 2, p. 346) 
selected as genotype U D. guttipennis (Wiedemann, 1828)” = 
Tabanus guttipennis Wiedemann, 1828. Although this species 
was included by Ad. Lutz in 1909, it was not mentioned by him 
in 1912, when the generic name was first validly proposed. Un- 
fortunately, from Lutz’ description and figure his D. unicolor 
does not appear to be congeneric with T. guttipennis , as the eyes 
are presumably bare and the tooth of the third antennal seg- 
ment is only moderately long. For this reason we feel impelled 
to discard Dicladocera for the group thus called by Enderlein, 
Krober and Fairchild, and to use instead the name Dasy chela 
Enderlein, 1922 (Mitt. Zool. Mus. Berlin, X, pt. 2, p. 380; 
monotypic for D. limbativena Enderlein, 1922). This name was 
dropped by Enderlein in 1925, as he then described limbativena 
as a species of Dicladocera. 
Dasy chela includes here all Neotropical Tabaninae with nor- 
mal tibiae, a bare -or almost bare subepaulet (sometimes with a 
narrow patch of a few macrotrichia near the middle), a long 
and often finger-shaped upper process near the base of the third 
antennal segment, and hairy or pubescent eyes (hairs sometimes 
short, scattered and easily overlooked). Enderlein at first 
(1922) placed his Dicladocera in the key as if the eyes were 
bare; but he corrected this error later (1925). The eyes are 
distinctly pubescent in D. guttipennis. 
Stypochela Enderlein, 1922. This genus was originally pro- 
posed for a single species, Stypochela bogotana Enderlein, 1922, 
on the strength of the slender, narrow body and the presence 
of an appendix to the fork of the third longitudinal vein. These 
characters are scarcely of even subgeneric value. We should 
