ENTOMOLOGY 879 
rated only by the first posterior cell being either open (in Silviinae) or closed 
(in Searphiinae). The character is certainly not of subfamily value. Moreover, 
Miss Ricardo, who examined the types of both Pangonia directa and P. parva, 
states that all the posterior cells are widely open. This is also the case in the 
one specimen I have seen of R. edentula. If the specimen examined by Ender- 
lein was correctly named and actually had the first posterior cell closed, this 
must have been accidental. 
Phara Walker 
Phara Walker, 1850, ‘Insecta Saundersiana,’ I, Dipt., p. 9. Type by designation of Austen (1920): 
Pangonia melanopyga Wiedemann, 1819. Enderlein, 1925, Mitt. Zool. Mus. Berlin, XI, 2, 
p. 283 (in part). 
Cadicera Macquart, 1855, ‘Dipt. Exot.,’ Suppl. V, p. 23. Monotypie for Cadicera rubramarginata 
Macquart, 1855. 
Phara appears to be exclusively Ethiopian. The genus is here used as 
emended by Austen (1908, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (5), I, pp. 211-212; and 
1912, Bull. Ent. Res., III, pp. 117-122) to include not only the very broad 
species related to the genotype, but also others of a more slender build, such 
as Cadicera flavicoma Austen (1912), Corizoneura obscura Ricardo (1908), and 
Cadicera speciosa Austen (1912), which are somewhat transitional to Ommatio- 
steres. Since the genus is as yet unknown from the Belgian Congo, I shall 
refrain from any further discussion. As several species have been found in 
Tanganyika Territory and Rhodesia, perhaps some will be discovered in Ka- 
tanga. 
Subpangonia Surcouf 
Subpangonia Surcouf, 1908, Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, XIV, p. 284. Monotypie for Subpangonia 
gravoti Surcouf, 1908. Enderlein, 1925, Mitt. Zool. Mus. Berlin, XI, 2, p. 284. 
This genus is known from the Ethiopian Region only, where it is, more- 
over, restricted to the rain forests of the West African Subregion. Only two 
species are known: S. gravoti Surcouf and S. grahami Austen. 
The remarkable proboscis of Subpangonia has been described by Austen 
(1912, Bull. Ent. Res., III, p. 126) in the following terms: ‘‘This organ which, 
in dead specimens at any rate, slants downwards at an obtuse angle with the 
longitudinal axis of the body, is of only moderate length or relatively short, 
and, instead of being slender and needle-like in appearance, looks thick and 
fleshy. The most striking external features of the proboscis are exhibited by 
the labella, which, instead of being small, inconspicuous, and narrow at the 
tips, are extraordinarily large, blunt-ended, and rather longer than or at least 
as long as half the total length of the proboscis. From the upper margin of 
the inner surface of each labellum there projects downwards, at an angle with 
the axis of the proboscis, a series of light-colored or reddish, rod-like processes, 
which are broader at the base and narrower at the tip, and diminish suecces- 
sively in length. Each labellum apparently bears ten or eleven of those rod- 
like structures, the proximal five or six of which are longer than the remainder, 
and (in dead specimens at any rate) protrude conspicuously below the lower 
ends of the rest, of which the extreme tips alone are visible from the outer side. 
