NOTES ON FRANCIS WALKER'S TYPES OF NORTHAMERICAN FLIES OF THE FAMILY TACHINIDAE By J. M. Aldrich Associate Curator, Division of Insects, United States Natio7ial Museum The well-known British entomologist Francis Walker describednumerous North American flies of the family Tachinidae in twopublications : List of the Specimens of Dipterous Insects in the Col-lection of the British Museum, part 4, 1849; and Insecta Saun-dersiana, or Characters of Undescribed Insects in the Collection ofWilliam Wilson Saunders, Esq., 1852.At that early time but little was known of the classification of thegroup, and Walker's descriptions were poor, even for the period.The first attempt to place his species in more restricted genera wasby Osten Sacken, in his Catalogue of North American Diptera(Smithsonian Institution, 1878). Osten Sacken had the advantageof having examined many of the types in the British Museum, whereWalker's were all deposited. He was not a specialist in the group,and but little advance in its classification had been made since thetime of Walker, except in the works of Rondani and Schiner, whichpertained only to the European members, with a few exceptions onthe part of Rondani.The first serious attempt to identify Walker's North Americanspecies was by Coquillett, in his Revision of the Tachinidae ofAmerica North of Mexico (Technical Series No. 7, Division ofEntomology, United States Department of Agriculture, 1897). Co-quillett had not seen Walker's types, but he studied the descriptionsvery carefully and believed that he had identified most of them.The nomenclature that he accepted has been adopted quite generallysince that time, at least as to the species, although Townsend invarious papers expressed the opinion that Coquillett had niisidenti-fied many of them.Maj. E. E. Austen reported the results of an examination of manyof Walker's types in Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 7,vol. 19, pp. 326-347, 1907.No. 2910.?Proceedings U. S. National Museum, Vol. 80. Art. 1070406?31 1 2 PROOEEDIISrGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 80In 1929 I had the opportunity to examine most of Walker's typespecimens, although in the time at my disposal I did not see all ofthem. The object of the present paper is to report the results ofthis work and to indicate as far as possible the available names ofthe species Coquiilett had before him, in those cases where he erredin his identification of Walker. Species of which I did not see thetypes are also included, with such explanations as I can offer fromthe much larger collections now available and the advances in classi-fication that have been made in recent decades. They are listed underWalker's names, and in the order of Coquillett's work, although inthis arrangement I am obliged to begin with a series in which I didnot see the tj^pes.I am under obligation to the authorities of the British Museum,especially to Maj. E. E. Austen, D. S: O., keeper of the division ofinsects, for the privilege of examining this important material.Only species from the region north of Mexico are here discussed.Gymnosonia par Walker, List, p. 692. Coquiilett (p. 43) madethis a synonym of G. fuUginosa Robineau-Desvoidy. Type not seen.The genus is a striking one, and but one species is known from theEastern States; no one has questioned the correctness of Coquillett'sidentification.Gymnosoma occidua Walker, List, p. 692. Coquiilett (p. 43)placed this as a synonym of Cistogaster ivmiaculafa Macquart.Townsend ^ discussed imm^aculata and thought he could make out adivision of the abundant material into two forms, but left occiduaas a synonym of hnniaoulata as it had been placed by Coquiilett.Later ^ he decided that occidua is the valid name for one of the forms,immacidata for the other. He took up the subject again in hisTaxonomy of the Muscoidean Flies,^ where he redescribed occiduain both sexes and referred it to the genus Gymnoclytia Brauer andBergenstamm. The type of the genus is divisa Loew, the onlyincluded species, which is believed to be a synonym of occidua. Thegeneric characters are slight, and there is room for difference of opin-ion as to whether it is not a synonym of Cistogaster. The genotypeof the latter is the European gJohosa Fabricius, which has the petioleof the apical cell ending in the exact tip of the wing, and also has aless protuberant oral margin. Walker's description of the abdomenseems ample to fix the form he had. I did not see his type.Hyaloniyia occidentis Walker, Insecta Saundersiana, p. 260.The description is less than five lines long. I did not see the type.Coquiilett (p. 44) believed he had recognized the species and referred 1 Trans. Amfer. Ent. Soc, vol. 22, p. G6, 1895.2 Aim. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 6, vol. 19, p .SI, 1897.aSmilhsoniau Misc. Coll., vol. 51, p. 127, 1908. ART. 10 walker's north AMERICAN TACHINIDAE ALDRICH 3 it to Phoj^antha, with several supposed synonyms. He mentioned 12localities and probably included at least 25 specimens, including atype of Hijaloinyia aldrichi Townsend. His series has been rear-ranged and mixed with other material in the attempt to make outthe various forms included as synonyms and some specimens haveapparently been used in exchange. Townsend ^ separated one speci-men as type of Phoranthella mo^^lsoni, new genus and species, but itremains totally undescribed. Robertson ^ expressed the view thatCoquillett included at least three species and that occidentis can notbe recognized from the description. Without publishing on the mat-ter, Townsend later separated a female unlike Coquillett's from LosAngeles County, Calif., and labeled it as occidentis "typical."It may be assumed that Coquillett misidentified occidentis^ as hisspecimens do not agree with Walker's statement, "Abdomen hoary,black toward the base and with two black bands," especially as tothe black bands. If we leave the true occidentis aside until the typeis seen, the question of the identity of Coquillett's species remains forconsideration. He undoubtedly included aldrichi, and this name isthe valid one for most of his specimens; some of his other synonymsmay be distinct species. The genus should be Hyalomyla, as firstgiven by Townsend. H. aldrichi is a widespread species, with the firstabdominal segment black, all the following with glistening whitel^ollen and with indications of a median black stripe.Trichopoda histrio Walker, List, p. 697. No locality, but thetype must have been from tropical America; I did not see it. Coquil-lett (p. 48) made it a synonym of plumipes Fabricius. Townsendpublished notes on the group in Taxonomy of the Muscoidean Flies,*'in which he seemed to show histrio as a distinct form in his genusPolistomyia; but in his later work on the National Museum collectionhe apparently gave this up, as he left no specimens labeled withWalker's name. As to the status of Polistomyia, it is obvious fromthe sj)ecimens labeled by Townsend that the apical cell has a veryshort i^etiole and the hind tibiae are strongly ciliate, in the type spe-cies trifasciata Loew; other characters are very slight, hence I donot accept the genus, and should call the species Trichiopodaplumipes Fabricius, as Coquillett did, merely amending the spellingof the genus to agree with its original form.Phyto clesides Walker, List, p. 757. Coquillett (p. 51) identi-fied this as a species that he had described two years before ^ as Phytosetosa. Austen^ stated that Walker's type belongs to the genusPhorichaeta Rondani, a genus that has been regarded by later Euro- * Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, vol. 28, p. 23, 1915.scan. Ent., vol. 33, p. 285, 1901. ? Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 51, p. 134, 1908. ^Jonrn. New York Ent. Soc, vol. 3, p. 99, 1895.8 Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 7, vol. 19, p. 33G, 1897. 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL. MUSEUM vol. FOpean authors as a synonym of Wagneria Kobineau-Desvoidy. Onexamining the type I at first agreed with this disposition of it, butfurther examination showed that it belongs to Eutrichogena Town-send.? It is, in fact, the species on which Townsend based the genus,Trichogena setipennis Coquiilett, which becomes a synonym. Town-send ^? had stated that NeophoHchaeta johisoni Smith is a synonymof setipennis^ a conckision later accepted by Smith. There is nodoubt of the validity of EutricTiogena); hence Walker's species shouldbe called Eutrichogena clesides. Meanwhile Townsend ^^ had pro-posed the new genus Neophyto for Coquillett's sefosa, which is not aPliyto. This has been generally accepted for years; Coquillett'sspecies is therefore Neophyto setosa. It has no postscutellum, and Ithink it belongs to the family Sarcophagidae.Tachiiia tlieutis Walker, List, p. T78. Coquiilett (p. 52) placedthis in its proper genus, Gryptomeigenia Brauer and Bergenstamm.I took full notes on the type, a male from Nova Scotia. The genuscontains several North American species, which show modificationsof the ovipositor in the female available for specific distinction in atleast a part of the series. A revision of the genus is now in progressand will probably be published shortly after the present paper;hence it is not desirable to discuss the specific characters here.Tachina prisca Walker, List, p. 780. Coquiilett (p. 52) placedthis as a synonj^m of the preceding, and it certainly belongs to thesame genus. The type is a female from Nova Scotia, different fromtheutis^ on which I took notes that will be used in the forthcomingwork just mentioned.Tachina convecta Walker, Insecta Saundersiana, p. 276.Walker had already, page 264, established the genus Schizotachinafor this and his Tachina eocul, immediately following it. Coquiilett(p. 55) made eanil a synonym of convecta^ which was a very naturalcourse, as the descriptions are almost exactly the same. Both werefrom " United States." I was surprised on examining the type ofconvecta to find that it did not match the specimens I had with me.My notes run : One male, United States. It is in good condition as to antennae and abdo-men. I note first an absence of the interruptions of the basal silvery bandson second and third abdominal segments. The band seems entire on the secondand only interrupted in the middle on the third ; although narrow in a certainlight, they are not so sharply limited as in my two males. The band is in-distinct on the fourth segment laterally, perhaps on account of condition. Thediscal row of bristles on the fourth segment is distinctly behind the middle ; notso in mine. The narrowest part of the parafacial is much wider than in mymales, and the bristles of the facial ridges are only four, on lowest one-thirdor two-sevenths. Wings a little milky. ?Proc. Biol. Soc. WasMngton, vol. 28, p. 23, 1915.10 Insecutor Insiciae Menstruus, vol. 3, p. 116, 1915. "Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 51, p. 55, 1908. ART. 10 walker's north AMERICAN" TACHINIDAE ALDEICH 5The specimens I had with me had the narrow basal silvery bandsof the second, third, and fourth abdominal segments three times in-terrupted ; in other words, a row of four silvery spots, the outer widerthan the inner. This is the species referred to by Townsend whenhe says ^- that Clausicella usitata Coquillett (p. 56) and Neaera lon-gicornis Coquillett ^^ are synonyms of convecta. The discovery thntthere are two species of Schizotachina would seem to indicate usitatafor the name of the second, but I have found a peculiar complicationhere. Coquillett described usitata from three males and four fe-males, collected in the White Mountains, N. H. (Morrison), and atNew Bedford, Mass. (Hough). Later he decided that there weretwo species and removed those from the White Mountains, leavingonly a female from New Bedford under the species label. Town-send's note on synonymy was based on this female, and he appar-ently knew nothing of the whereabouts of the males. I have had thegood fortune to find the three males, and they belong to a speciesnot named in our collection, which I place provisionally in the genusPlectops. Since no one has published anj^thing about the occurrenceof two species under the name usitata.^ it remains to decide whichshall bear the name. I therefore designate the males as the truensitata^ letting the female go into longicornis. This course preservesall the names, while the designation of the female would leave uswith two names for one species and none for the other. The effectof this designation is to leave Schizotachina longicornis Coquillettas the valid name for the second species of the genus, differing fromconvecta in having the basal abdominal bands three times interrupted,in having much narrower parafacials in the male, and in beingdecidedly smaller.Coquillett had three specimens that he called convecta; one fromHorse Neck Beach, Mass., has no abdomen, but is probably the trueconvecta; while the other two, from Waco, Tex., and Colorado, arelongicornis.Tachina exul Walker, Insecta Saundersiana, p. 277. See noteunder preceding. Unfortunately I have no note on the type. Thereis very slight doubt that it is a synonym of convecta., as the twodescriptions are so nearly identical. Walker thought the specimena female, but as it has the third antennal joint divided it was cer-tainly a male.Dexia pedestris Walker, Insecta Saundersiana, p. 313. Placedin Hypostena by Coquillett (p. 51). The type is a male of thegenus Gryptomeigenia.) and is the same species as Walker's Tachinadeinylus., 1849. "Ent. News, vol. 26, p. 366, 1915. "Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 25, p. 106, 1902. 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 80The species identified as fedestns by Coquillett was described byTownsend as Meigenielloides cinerea}'^ As Townsend did not con-nect his species with that of Coquillett, I failed to observe that theywere the same, and redescribed it as Synoris coquilletti.^^ No otherspecies of the genus is known.Dexia pristis Walker, List, p. 841. Coquillett (p. 64) placedthe species in Macquartia, following an identification by Brauerand Bergenstamm. Before seeing the type I had accepted Coquil-lett's identification of the species, but had removed it from Mac-quartia to the genus P&eudeuantha^ which Townsend ^^ had erectedfor linelli^ new, from Mexico. An examination of the type showedthat Coquillett had identified it correctly, Brauer and Bergen-stamm erred, however, in the genus to which they assigned the speci-men sent them for identification. Townsend did not acceptCoquillett's species as the true pristis; in 1892 he had described it asAporia Umacodis, and he later ^^ made this the type of the new genusAnaporia. This genus I do not consider distinct from Pseudeuantha.Tachina areos Walker, List, p. 766. Placed in Polidea byCoquillett (p. 64), a genus now regarded as synonymous with LydlnaItobineau-Desvoid}^ Townsend had in 1892 described Trypheraamericana^ T. polidoides^ and Polidea cmiencana in a single paper ^^ ; all these Coquillett placed as synonyms of areos. In my Catalogueof North American Diptera,^^ I separated Tryphera americana Town-send as a distinct species of Polidea^ from an examination of thetype.As I did not see Walker's type, and as the large collection availablefor study shows much variation among the specimens, I can at presentonly indicate the nature of the problem here. There appears to be inEurope only one species of Lydina., the genotype, aenea Meigen. Itdiffers from the common form in this country most obviously inhaving black palpi. I had regarded this as a sufficient distinctionfor areos until obliged to review the matter for the present paper. Tnow find that Walker stated that areos has " palpi black." There isnow in the National Museum a series of five males and three femalesof Lydina., collected by me at Hammond, 111., June 24, 1915, all ofwhich have black palpi; there is also a female from Viola, Idaho,collected by me. A male and a female of aenea from Italy (Bezzi)show some differences, but hardly more than our series shows withinitself. If the black palpi are specific, and our specimens with thatcharacter belong to aenea., then Walker's areos is probably a synonym, "Troc. U. S. Nnt. Mus., vol. 56, p. 574, 1910.?Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 69, art. 22, p. 12, 1926." Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 49, p. 416, 1915.1' Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 56, p. 560, 1919." Can. Ent., vol. 24, pp. 78, 79, and 82, respectively, 1892." Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 46, no. 1444, p. 436, 1905. ART. 10 walker's north AMERICAN TACHINIDAE ALDEICH 7 and one of Townsend's names will apply to the species with yellowpalpi. With only a single pair from Europe I am in doubt. We have42 specimens of Lydina from North America, and they show remark-able variations in antennal form and in the degree of hypertrophy ofthe front tarsi in the females. It would not be feasible to attempt afurther analysis here.Tachina masuria Walker, List, p. 753. Coquillett (p. 72')identified this as the species that he had previously described ~^ asClytiomyia exilis, making it the type of a new genus, Eutrixa.Austen -^ published the following note on Walker's type : " Is anAcemyla^ Rob.-Desv., apparently distinct from A. dentata Coq. andA. tibialis Coq." As I did not see the type, I can add nothing to this.Coquillett's species is easily disposed of by reviving his exilis, whichis not a sjaionym; for some years it has been correctly known asEutnxa exilis Coquillett.Tachina corythus Walker, List, p. 797. Coquillett (p. 73)placed it as a sj^nonym of Xanthoiiielana atrifennis Say. The de-scriptions agree very well, and no one has proposed a differentdisposition of corythus. I did not see the type.Tachina aelops Walker, List, p. 796. Coquillett (p. 73) placedthis in the genus Beskia Brauer and Bergenstamm, which waserected for a new species named cornuta^ from Brazil. Coquillettplaced cornuta as a synonym of aelops, and I '^'^ agreed with thison examining the type of cornuta, but without seeing the tj^pe ofaelops. Austen -^ referred Walker's type to Beskia. Townsend -* still thinks the two species distinct; this, however, does not inter-fere with the correctness of the name used by Coquillett, Beskiaaelops Walker, as he refers the species to that genus. I did not seeWalker's type.Tachina insolita Walker, Insecta Saundersiana, p. 277. Co-quillett (p. 85) placed this in the genus Melanophrys, along withthe type species of the genus, flampennis Williston. Later ^^ heplaced flavipennis as a synonym of insolita. The specimen nowbearing his label as insolita is correctly named, but his specimennow bearing the name flavipennis is also insolita. He attemptedto separate the two species by the abdominal bristles, which aresomewhat variable and do not lend themselves to the purpose. Ininsolita the third antennal joint is hardly longer than the second;in -flavipennis it is fully twice as long in the female and even longerin the male. The male of insolita has a striking, thick median 'OJourn. New York Eiit. Soc, vol. 3, p. 53, 1895. "Ann. Mag. Hist., ser. 7, vol. 19, p. 360, 1907.22 Ann. Eut. Soc. Amer., vol. 18, p. 120, 1925.23 Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 7, vol. 3 9, p. 345, 1907. " Ent. News, vol. 39, p. 150, 1928. ^sproc. U. S. Nat. Mils., vol. 37, p. 567, 1910. 8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 80horn projecting downward on the second genital segment, and theparafrontal and parafacial are smoothly silvery down to the largebrownish " transverse impression " near the vibrissae ; the male offlavipennis has no honi on the genital segment, and the parafrontaland parafacial are shining black, except a narrow silvery bandextending from the eye to the suture at the level of the secondantennal joint. The female of -fiavifemiis has a silvery poUinosestripe from eye to antenna about as in its male, while that ofinsolita has a more diffuse, wider stripe beginning higher up atthe eye and sloping downward as it approaches the antenna?italso has a rather faint spot of pale pollen on the parafacial restingagainst the eye at its lower curve. In both sexes, flavipennis has aclump of bristles at the vibrissa, while insolita has only one row.I examined the type of insolita; it is a female with characters asindicated. Coquillett had the species, but erred in trying to maketwo of it. I have also examined the types of flavipennis in theUniversity of Kansas.Townsend^? described Atropharista jurinoides, new genus and newspecies, which is a synonym of Melanophrys insolita^ as pointed outby Coquillett, Townsend himself " having admitted the synonymy ofthe species.Ocyptera dotadas Walker, List, p. 694. Coquillett (p. 86)placed this as a synonym of Ocyptera caroUnae Eobineau-Desvoidy.The type, according to my notes, is " one male, a fragile and damagedspecimen that I dare not spread." It is from Jamaica. In my revi-sion of the genus, to which I applied the prior name Cylindromyia^^I placed both dotadas and caroUnae among the unidentified species.Walker's description states that the antennae are shorter than inthe European forms; the abdomen is red, with base and tip black.These are the only characters given that seem of value in identifyingthe species. Perhaps specimens from Jamaica may ultimately justifya specific determination.Ocyptera epytus Walker, List, p. 694. Coquillett (p. 86) placedthis as a synonym of caroUnae Eobineau-Desvoidy. I did not findthe type in the British Museum. Townsend -" expressed the opinionthat it is the same species as euchenor, but he made out the synonymyonly from the description, and his euchenor was not the same asWalker's. I listed epytus as unidentified in my revision, noted underthe preceding species. It was described from Georgia.Ocyptera euchenor Walker, List, p, 696. Coquillett (p. 86)placed this with the two preceding as synonyms of caroUnaeRobineau-Desvoidy. In my revision of the genus, noted above, I 2?Tr.nus. Amer. Ent. Soc, vol. 19, p. 92, 1892.2^ Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, vol. 22, p. 72, 1895.28 Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 68, art. 23, p. 26, 1926.? Journ. New York Ent. Soc, vol. 5, p. 177, 1897. AET. 10 walker's north AMERICAN TACHINIDAE ALDEICH 9 placed the species by the aid of Major Austen, to whom I sent mymanuscript key and some numbered specimens before publishing.The type, which I have since seen, is a female and agrees with thespecies accepted by me. The supposed euchenor of Townsend ^^ isvulgaris^ neAV species of my revision.Ocyptera dosiades Walker, List, p. C95. Coquillett (p. 86)identified this correctly. The type is a female. Major Austen hadassisted me in placing it in my revision before I saw the type. Irefer it to the genus Cylindromyia^ like the others.Tachina ampelus Walker, List, p. 732. Coquillett (p. 88)placed the species as a synonym of Panzeria radicmn Fabricius.Later, however, he separated specimens under the name anifelus^which agree with the type, as I found by sending some to MajorAusten for comparison. I failed to see the type myself, but thereare good external characters. Tothill ^^ revised the genus andadopted Ernestia as the proper generic name, redescribing am'pelus(p. 273). It is a very common species. Coquillett apparently iden-tified the species correctly in 1897, but erred in making it a synonymof a European species not now believed to occur in North America.Curran ^^ has proposed to refer all our American species ofErnestia. to Merida Robineau-Desvoidy, since ours have infrasquamalsetules absent in the genotj^pe of Ernestia. Two questions arise here : Is the character of generic value, and is it possessed by the genotypeof MeHciaf As to the first point, there seem to be no North Ameri-can species of Ernestia without infrasquamal setules, and they areabsent in the Euro]3ean E. mdis., type of the genus. They are, how-ever, present in the European E, connivens Zetterstedt and E. pudicusKondani (specimens determined by Doctor Villeneuve). Curranhas proposed as a supplementary character that the posterior forcepsof Ernestia are simple (or flat), while in Mericia they are keeled.Our American species have them keeled, and so does connivens^ butpudicus has them simple, thus dividing the two characters. As theinfrasquamal setules are sometimes very few as well as minute, Ihesitate to give them generic weight in the absence of other char-acters. As to my second question, it appears that MeHcia engoneaRobineau-Desvoidy, the sole original species of the genus, can notbe identified and is unknown. Stein ^^ says as much. It seems im-possible to assume that it has the characters indicated by Curran,who in response to an inquiry informed me that he did not know thespecies. Hence I should continue to call Walker's species Ernestiaatufelus. sojourn. New York Ent. Soc, vol. 5, 176, 1S97. "Can. Ent., vol. 54, pp. 199 ff.. 1921. "^Ent. News, vol. 35, p. 214, 1924. "Arch. f. Naturg., vol. 90, p. 53, 1924. 10 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. SOTachina pyste Walker, List, p. 754. Coquillett (p. 93) placedthis in Exorista. The type is a female and agrees with the deter-mination of Coquillett. Aldrich and Webber ^* make pyste a syno-njaii of Tnaculosa Meigen of Europe, which Stein ^^ puts as a syno-n3^m of -floralis Fallen. Brauer and Bergenstamm had referredAmerican specimens to the genus NemoHlla Rondani for Coquillett,and this genus is now generally accepted for the species. HenceTachina pyste Walker should be called Nemorilla -floraUs Fallen.Tachina epicydes Walker, List, p. 786. Coquillett (p. 94)placed this as a synonym of ExoHsta affinis Fallen. The type is amale from Martins Falls, Albany River, Canada ; it runs in the key ofAldrich and Webber to Zenillia coerulea^ new species, and agreeswith the description perfectly except that it appears to have truediscals. The abdomen is rubbed and this point is not clear, but Iaccept the synonym}^, sinking coerulea.Eurygaster septentrionalis Walker, in Lord's " Naturalist inVancouver Island," vol. 2, p. 339, 1847. Coquillett (p. 102) placedtliis as a synonym of Euphorocera cJaripennis Macquart. I did notfind the type in the British Museum. The description is vague andincomplete, but reads like a Phorocera. It is as follows : Euryijaster septentrionalis, N. S. Foem.?Nigra, setosn, latiuscula ; capiteargenteo-cinereo ; vertiee aurato ; frontalibns atris ; palpis rufescentibus ; an-tennis aristae dimidio incrassato ; thorace vittis quinque cinereis ; scutelliapice piceo ; abdomine cinereo subtessellato ; alis cinereis.Female.?Black, setose, rather broad. Head silvery cinereous, gilded above ; frontalia deep black, widening in front ; facialia bordered with bristles aloug^most of the length from the epistoma. Palpi reddish. Antennae extendingto the epistoma ; third joint linear, rounded at the tip, full six times the lengthof the second ; arista incrassated for half its length from the base. Thoraxwith five cinereous stripes; scutellum piceous at the tip. Abdomen slightlytessellated with cinereous, very bristly toward the tip, a little longer thanthe thorax. Wings cinereous ; veins black ; prebrachial vein forming an obtuseangle at its flexure, straight from thence to its tip. [Length omitted.]Tachina melobosis Walker, List, p. 743. Coquillett (p. 105)could not identify any specimens as belonging to this species, andplaced it doubtfully as a Phorocera. I saw the type, a male fromFlorida, but had nothing with me to match it, nor can I find thespecies in the National Museum ; hence I quote the description I madefrom the type : Much resembles LypTKi dubia Fallen in having hairy eyes, large pteropleurals,abdomen thick apically and with discals, the first genital segment shining blackand rather large and conspicuous. However, melobosis has much longer an-tennae, and the penultimate joint of the arista is elongate.Outer vertical larger than a hair ; ocellars proclinate and divergent ; 2 re-clinate frontals, 10 others to second fifth of third antennal joint, fully meeting 3*Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 63. art. 17, p. 5, 1924.?3Arcla. f. Naturg., vol. 90, p. 83, 1924. I ART. 10 walker's north AMERICAN TACHIISriDAE ALDEICH 11 the bristles on facial ridges. Third antennal joint long and wide, five times thesecond, upper angle prominent ; arista straight, thickened to beyond the middle.Antennal groove deep with sharp edges. Palpi blackish. Pollen of the narrowparafacial rather dark, very thin pollen on parafrontals, which look black.Mesonotum with indistinct stripes. Dorsocentral 3 ; sternopleural 2, 1 ; scutel-lum with 3 lateral, one rather long apical in poor condition. Abdomen shiningblack, bases of second, third, and fourth segments with band of whitish pollen ; venter almost wholly shining in side view, as deep close to the apex as at base.Mid tibia with two very distinct bristles on outer front side ; hind tibia withsparse bristles on outer side, not ciliate. Wing subhyaline, fourth vein withrounded, rectangular bend, then very concave, just closing the apical cell barelybefore the extreme apex ; hind cross vein erect, almost in middle between an-terior and bend ; first vein bare, third with two hairs.Tachina addita Walker is the female of this, and is so placed byMajor Austen.The species may be left in Lypha until further material is found orthe related forms revised.Tachina addita Walker, Insecta Saundersiana, p. 290. Placed byCoquillett (p. 105) as a synonym of the preceding, and I found thatMajor Austen had made out the same synonjany from the types, withwhich I fully agreed. The locality was " United States."Tachina antennata Walker, Insecta Saundersiana, p. 298. Co-quillett (p. 105) lists this as unrecognized, perhaps a Phorocera. Idid not see the type, and nothing has been published upon it as far asI know. The description indicates a very recognizable and remark-able form, if the statements can be relied upon ; briefly, it has the eyeshairy, facial ridges bristly, and third antennal joint greatly widened,twice as wide as long; palpi and antennae black. Several species ofNorth American Tachinidae are known with very wide third anten-nal joint in the male, but all of them that I can find in the collectionhave bare eyes and bare facial ridges.Tachina ancilla Walker, Insecta Saundersiana, p. 299. Co-quillett (p. 106) placed this in the genus Frontina^ but he had thewrong species. I found the type to be the same species that Town-send described as Pseudornyofhyria indecisa.^^ Townsend suggestedthis synonymy in 1918.^'^ Major Austen ^? referred Walker's type tothe genus Frontina. I referred indecisa to the genus 7'achinophyto(regarding Pseiulomyothyria as a synonym of the latter) .^^Coquillett's species, which he mistook for ancilla, has been pro-vided for by Townsend,^'' who named it Frontiniella parancilla, newgenus and species (by misprint pararcilla) . Townsend compared thenew genus with the European genotype of Fi'ontlna; if he had com-pared with AchaetoTieura his differences would have disappeared ?8 Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, vol. 19, p. 132, 1892. ^Troc. Ent. Soc. Washington, vol. 20, p. 21, 1918. "^Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 7, vol. 19, p. 337, 1907. '? Insecutor Inscitiae Menstruus, vol. 12, pp. 147, 149, 1924. 12 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL. MUSEUM vol.80 except a few very slight ones. Webber, hoATever, in revising thegenus Achaetoneura,^'^ has left this out; it may stand for the present.Tachina violenta Walker, List, p. 788. Coquillett (p. 108)identified this as a species of Frontina. The type is a male fromNova Scotia, and is the same species described on an earlier page byWalker as panaetius, which I take for the valid name. It is thesame species described by Townsend as Tachinomyia rohusta.^^ InCiirran's key to the species of Tachinomyia ^^^ the type runs to couplet3, but I did not venture to spread the genitalia and could not posi-tively exclude variata Curran, which, however, seems at most notmore than a subspecies of robusta. The genus TacMnoinyia is adistinct one, hence violenta in my opinion is a synonym of Tachino-w/yia panaetius Walker.As to the species misidentified as violenta by Coquillett, the speci-men with Coquillett's label on was included in Achaetoneura testacea^new species, by Webber.*^ Coquillett placed Masicera dubia Willis-ton ** and Masicera sphingivora Townsend *^ as synonyms of hissupposed violenta. Webber has discussed these on pages 36 and 37of his recent revision. ,Tachina irrequieta Walker, List, p. 788. Coquillett (p. 108)placed what he identified as this species in Fronting. The type isa female of Tachinomyia panaetius Walker.The species misidentified by Coquillett as irrequieta is included asAchaetoneura rileyi Williston by Webber in his revision of Achae-toneurc(\; *? Coquillett had already indicated the synonymy of this si:)ecies with the supposed irrequieta.Tachina dydas Walker, List, p. 748. Coquillett had no speci-mens Avhich he could identify as this species, and placed it (p. 108)as a doubtful species of Frontina. Major Austen*^ published a noteon the type, making it a synonym of Eutachina rustica Meigen. Iagree with this disposition after examining the type; but it seemsthat simulans Meigen has some years priority for the species, andthe genus Eutachina has little to stand on as against Tachina ofauthors {=Exorista Meigen according to strict rules, as larvarumLinnaeus was the only species originally included in Exorista). Onthis basis the species becomes Exorista simulans Meigen.Tachina obconica Walker, Insecta Saundersiana, p. 296. Co-quillett (p. 110) placed this as a synonym of Sturmia alhifronsWalker. The type is a female, not a male as Walker thought, and is *" Pioc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 78, art. 10, pp. 3, 35, 1930. -tt Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, vol. 19, p. 96, 1S92.? Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, 1926, sec. 5, p. 108." Proe. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 78, art. 10, p. 25, 1930.? Scudder's Butterflies of New England, vol. 3, p. 1924, 1889.<^ Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, vol. 19, p. 286, 1892.