SUBFAMILY POLLENIINAE 353 
than broad; facial carina short, broad, rounded, low, the antennal 
bases obviously separated; parafaciale narrowed and_ setose 
above; faciale convex in profile, short, without setae except at 
vibrissae, which are considerably above the oral margin and 
hardly stronger than bristles immediately below it; palpus three- 
fourths as long as haustellum, rather filiform; antennal base at 
eye middle when head is viewed in profile, third segment one 
and one-half to two times as long as second, reaching only about 
two-thirds the distance to the vibrissa; arista with short plumo- 
sity above and below; profile of back of head in male flattened 
or slightly concave above and evenly rounded below, slightly 
rounded in female. 
Thorax with considerable short soft hair; preacrostichal bris- 
tles one or two; predorsocentral bristles two; postacrostichal 
bristles one or two; scutellum with two or three discal bristles, 
lateral bristles two strong and two weak, apical bristles absent. 
Male genital segments large, globose; first segment without 
marginal row of bristles; second segment smaller than first. In- 
ternal morphological features typically calliphorid as illustrated. 
This genus was placed in the tribe Moriniini, family Mela- 
nophoridae, by Townsend (1935, p. 260). The head shape of 
Melanodexia is certainly like that of Morinia, and the characters 
used by Townsend in his keys will place melanodexiid flies in 
that family and tribe. But the genital structures of these flies 
are obviously calliphorid, the head shape is similar to that of 
Pollema and other related flies, and the characters which are 
used in this paper place the species as close relatives of Pollenia. 
There is little or no similarity in the genital structures between 
Melanodexia and Morimia, nor between Melanodexia and any of 
the sarcophagid flies. Occasional specimens show a few intra- 
postocular cilia, a character not exhibited by any sarcophagid 
flies now known to me. The similarity of the internal sexual 
structure to that of Pollenia is especially striking. Due to these 
facts, I am unable to see close resemblances between Melanodexia 
and other genera which I consider to be closely related to 
Melanophora, 
While there are a good many differences between Nitellia and 
Melanodexia, Bigot was correct in concluding that his Nitellia 
glabricula was related to Pollenia, and Brauer, in referring 
glabricula to Pollenia, did not overlook the resemblances. One 
cannot help but appreciate the similarities in the head shape, 
especially the character of the carina and general aspect pre- 
sented by the genital segments of the male and female. 
