Sphaeniscus and Euphranta — Hardy 
79 
Fig. 2. Sphaeniscus sexmaculatus at ilia (Walker), a. 
Wing; b, ovipositor. 
1949 (N. D. Waters) and Ranikhet, U. P., 
July, 1949, on flowers (F. A. Bianchi). Ryukyu 
Islands: Ishigaki, December, 1952 (G. E. 
Bohart). China: Suisapa, Lichuan Dist. W. 
Hupeh, 1,000 m., July, 1948, and Sang-Hou- 
Ken to Mo-tai-chi, Hupeh, July, 1948. 
Euphranta Loew 
Euphranta Loew, 1862. Mon. Europ. Bohrfl., 
p. 28. 
This genus is recognized by the presence 
of fine hairs on the pleuroterga (the lateral 
divisions of the metanotum) ; by the absence 
of ocellar, presutural, and prescutellar bristles 
(in Euphranta {Euphranta)) ; by having strong 
sternopleural and two to three pairs of in- 
ferior fronto-orbital bristles. Staurella Bezzi 
appears to be a subgenus of Euphranta , the 
only satisfactory character which I have found 
for separating them is the presence or absence 
of the prescutellar bristles. Some of the litera- 
ture dealing with these flies has contained 
some obvious errors which have confused the 
generic concepts. Bezzi (1913: 122) and Hen- 
del (1927: 68) stated that dorsocentral bristles 
are absent in Euphranta. Hendel previously 
(1914: 80) said that dorsocentrals were ab- 
sent, at least in the females. I have studied 
the genotype and a number of other species, 
and descriptions of species, and have found 
none which has no dorsocentrals; all, how- 
ever, have lacked prescutellars in both sexes. 
I believe Bezzi and Hendel were actually re- 
ferring to the prescutellar rather than the 
dorsocentral bristles. Chen (1947: 80), follow- 
ing Bezzi, indicated that Euphranta lack dor- 
socentral bristles. Hering (1938: 24) made the 
same statement except that the lack of dorso- 
centrals was included parenthetically and was 
attributed to Hendel and he said that because 
of their position he was of the opinion that 
Hendel was referring to prescutellar bristles. 
Chen {op.cit.: 85) said that Euphranta may 
also be distinguished from Staurella by having 
the base of vein R4+5 distinctly bristled, in 
contrast to Staurella which has R4+5 bare. 
Bezzi (1913) used this character in separating 
Staurella but indicated that it may be variable. 
I have found this character to be very incon- 
sistent, bristles are present at the base of R4+5 
in most of the species of Staurella which I have 
studied. A number of other characters have 
been mentioned as useful in separating these 
groups: The position of the r-m crossvein, 
whether it is before or after the middle of the 
discal cell; the position of the dorsocentral 
bristles in relation to the anterior supraalar 
bristles; the comparative length of the sub- 
costal cell and the shape of the third antennal 
segment. I have checked these characters 
through all of the available species of both 
groups and have found them to be of no value 
in separating these groups. In veiw of this and 
in the absence of any apparent characters 
which are consistent, other than the presence 
or absence of prescutellar bristles, it would 
seem more proper to consider Staurella as a 
subgenus of Euphranta. The genus Stauroc- 
neros Hering is close to Staurella and might 
also prove to be a subgenus of Euphranta. 
Hering distinguished it thus: the first section 
of the costa as long or longer than the second, 
the dorsocentral bristles situated just slightly 
behind a line drawn between the anterior 
supraalars; the m crossvein situated beyond 
the middle of cell 1st M 2 ; the arista short 
haired; and the second tibia having only one 
long apical spine. Some of these may not be 
