Australian Fruit Flies — Hardy 
183 
incisions around the margin, by having the 
dorsocentral bristles placed distinctly behind 
the anterior supra-alars, by having the meso- 
notum scarcely longer than wide, by the lack 
of pile on the scutellum, and by having two 
pairs each of superior and inferior fronto- 
orbital bristles. Malloch (1939^) removes 
Termitorioxa from Kioxa on the basis of the 
differences in the frontal bristles and the 
narrower mesonotum and by the presence of 
small hairs on the scutellum. According to 
Hendel (1928) (also Malloch, 1939^) three 
Australian species belong in the genus Kioxa. 
He assigns them to the subgenus Dirtoxa 
Hendel. Malloch says that Kioxa araucariae 
Tryon and R. jarvisi Tryon do not belong in 
Rioxa. It is now quite apparent that bicolor, 
also, does not fit into this group, but belongs 
to the genus Acanthoneura. 
genotype: Rioxa lanceolata Walker. 
KEY TO AUSTRALIAN Rioxa 
1. The hyaline spots in cell Rs are nearly 
as wide as the cell (Fig. d 2 a) 
pornia (Walker) 
The hyaline spots are comparatively 
small, about half as wide as cell R5 . . 2 
2. The hyaline spot in cell R5, just above 
the m crossvein, is connected with 
the large wedge-shaped hyaline mark 
in cell 2d M2; the hyaline mark in the 
apex of cell 1st M2 not extending 
across the cell testacea Hendel 
The spot in cell R5, above the m cross- 
vein, is isolated from the wedge- 
shaped mark in 2d M2; the hyaline 
mark at the apex of 1st M2 extends 
across the cell through cell M4 to 
wing margin confusa n. sp. 
Rioxa (Dirtoxa) confusa n. sp. 
Fig. 'b\a-d 
The Rioxa of Australia have not been 
thoroughly studied and this species has never 
been properly placed. It had previously been 
considered to be Rioxa pornia (Walker) but 
was found to be quite a different species 
when the true identity of pornia was ascer- 
tained. The species was then considered to 
be hicolor Macquart, which had been assigned 
to Rioxa by Hendel (1928) and Malloch 
(1939^). The wing coloration of R. confusa 
fits Macquart’s figure (1855, pk 7, fig. 7) 
rather closely in most respects, allowing for 
the inaccuracy in detail characteristic of many 
of Macquart’s figures. R. confusa wings differ 
by having smaller, rounder spots in cell R5, 
by having the hyaline mark in the apex of 
cell 1st M2 enlarged in the upper portion and 
not just a narrow streak across the apex, by 
having the brown coloration extending from 
cell 1st M2 into cell M4 not reaching to the 
wing margin, and by having the hyaline 
marking in cell M4 extending to the middle 
part of cell 1st M2 (Fig. 31^). 
R. confusa is apparently more closely re- 
lated to R, testacea Hendel than to any other 
known species. It is distinguished by the 
characters given in the above key. 
MALE. A predominantly yellow species with 
dark brown to black maculations in the wings. 
Head: The face is one and one-half times 
longer than wide; the lower portion is dis- 
colored with red. The face is straight on the 
upper two-thirds and tumescent below. The 
gena are about as wide as the third antennal 
segment. Thorax: Entirely clear yellow, sub- 
shining, very lightly grayish pollinose. Legs: 
All yellow. Wings: As given in the above key 
and notes and as shown in Figure 31^. The 
first costal cell is hyaline and bare; the second 
cell is covered with microtrichia and is 
yellowish-fumose in the basal portion. The 
marginal fringe on the squamae is made up of 
gray to blackish hairs. Abdomen: The first 
three terga are yellowish; the fourth is yellow 
to rufous in the middle and brown to black 
on the sides. The fifth tergum varies from 
yellow to rufous in the middle and brown to 
black on the sides to chiefly brown to black 
with a tinge of rufous in the middle at the 
apex. 
Length: Body, 5.0 mm.; wings, 5.5 mm. 
FEMALE. Very similar to the male. Ovi- 
positor: In pinned specimens just the basal 
segment is visible. It is dark brown to black 
