152 THE BLOWFLIES OF NortH AMERICA 
bristles, one always at apical third, and one sometimes near mid- 
dle; hind femur with complete posteroventral and posterodorsal 
rows of bristles, and a partial basal anteroventral row of bristles; 
hind tibia with one dorsal bristle apically, about three antero- 
dorsal bristles distributed from base to near middle, two antero- 
ventral bristles near middle, and two posterodorsal bristles near 
middle. 
Wing hyaline; subcostal sclerite setose on anterior apical mar- 
gin; remigium bare at base below; only third vein setulose above; 
fourth vein without apical section or fold; anterior cross vein 
at middle of second section of fourth vein; posterior cross vein 
gently sinuate; last section of fifth vein one-fifth as long as pre- 
ceeding section; seventh vein long, curved; upper squamal lobe 
of medium size, pilose on lower basal section, the posterior mar- 
gin rounded; lower squamal lobe large, ovate, widened posterior- 
ly, pilose on depression and anteriorly above. | 
Abdomen with ventral membrane usually narrowly exposed; 
no discal or median marginal bristles on intermediate segments; 
second and third segments each with a marginal row of weak de- 
eumbent bristles; fourth segment with a marginal row of longer 
and more erect bristles. 
Genital segments with first segment large, narrow, globose, and 
without a row of marginal bristles; second segment small, rather 
flattened. 
The problem of the genotype selection for Paralucilia Brauer 
and Bergenstamm must be settled on the basis of the short ori- 
ginal description of the genus: ‘‘Bei Lucia bildet eine n. G. 
Musca (Calliph.) fulvipes (Blanch. 8.). Dritte Ader nur basal 
_gedornt. Paralucilia n. Chile.’’ In this reference the ‘‘ (Blanch. 
S.)’’ refers to Blanchard and Schiner. The species fulvapes Mac- 
quart appeared in publications of each of these writers previous 
to the publication of Paralucila. In using the names of Blan- 
chard and Schiner rather than that of Macquart, it is possible 
that Brauer and Bergenstamm attached no particular signifi- 
eance to association of the original author’s name with the spe- 
cific name. However, there is no evidence within the original ref- 
erence to indicate that they were restricting their concept of the 
genus Paraluctlia to certain specimens determined by Blanchard 
and Schiner or that they were excluding Calliphora fulvipes 
Macquart; and there is no doubt that Musca (Calliph.) fulvipes 
(Blanch. 8.) is nomenclatorially the same as Calliphora fulvipes 
Macquart. This being the case, the identity of the material be- 
fore Brauer and Bergenstamm when they described Paraluctlia 
has no bearing on the nomenclatorial problem. 
