85 
on the CEstri and Cuterebrse of various Animals. 
We may further remark, in confirmation of this apprehension of CE. Trompe, 
Mod., being only the male of this species, that exactly the same colours pre¬ 
vail in the wings of both, and the wings in this genus are highly character¬ 
istic of species. Modeer gives precisely the same term to the wings of both 
flies, alls fuliginosis, an expression rather stronger, perhaps, than the colour 
admits of, not truly sooty black, but of a dusky, smoky brown, mixed with a 
golden tinge in certain lights. The colouring of the body in both insects is 
nearly the same; that of CE. Trompe rather brighter, as is most frequently the 
case in the males of all animals. 
There is, however, one objection to our supposition, which was remarked 
to me by my friend Mr. W. E. Shuckard, viz. that the neuration of the wings 
has a small point of difference. The wing is faithfully given at PI. I. fig. 29. 
of my treatise, and it may be seen that the large middle cell is bounded back¬ 
wards, towards the thin part of the wing, by a flexuose margin or thread ; 
whereas he tells me that in CE. Tarandi this is straight. Whether this be fatal 
to my conjecture I know not, but after candidly stating it, I leave it for others 
on the spot where they are found to determine. A description of this species 
is given in my treatise under the name of CE. Stimulator, as was before stated. 
Herman Burmeister, in his ‘ Manual of Entomology,’ Shuckard’s trans¬ 
lation, p. 557, makes the larvae of CE. Trompe to inhabit the temporal cavities 
of the reindeer, but does not furnish us with his authority for this assertion, 
and perhaps for temporal cavities should be read maxillary or frontal. 
1 have further to remark, that on examining the antennae of this supposed 
species, CE. Trompe, I observed a shining black spherical knob or globe 
attached to them, which is not to be seen at all, or at least in the same degree, 
in the female (if such it be) : and noticing this fact, I was led to carry my 
observations to that supposed variety of CE. Bovis, given in my enumeration 
as CE. Bovis, var. k. vernalis, see p. 68, under the impression that it might be 
some early, abortive, or ill-fed individual of CE. Bovis. Dr. Leach, however, 
considered this to be a distinct species, giving to it the name of CE. ericetorum 
(vid. ‘GEstrideous Ins.,’ p. 2), but which I always objected to as not being suffi¬ 
ciently distinct. On examining this insect I found it to possess the very same 
globose antennee as the above CE. Trompe, which further confirmed me in the 
opinion that this is the male of CE. Bovis, as that is the male of CE. Tarandi. 
