Article beginning on page 77.
Psyche 12:77-78, 1905.

Full text (searchable PDF)
Durable link: http://psyche.entclub.org/12/12-077.html

The following unprocessed text is extracted from the PDF file, and is likely to be both incomplete and full of errors. Please consult the PDF file for the complete article.

RECENT ENTOMOLOGICAL LITERATURE
RECENT ENTOMOLOGICAL LITERATURE.
A CATALOGUE OF NORTH AMERICAN DIPTERA. BY J. M. ALDRICH. (Smith- sonian Miscellaneous Collection, Vol. XLVI, Pages 1-680, 1905.) About twenty years have elapsed since the publication of Baron Osten Sacken's cata- logue of the North American Diptera, A catalogue such as the author now presents is one of the greatest stimuli to the study of any group, and it should be possible to have such works bearing on all of the orders published more frequently.
This work has the same faunal limits as the Osten Sacken catalogue of 1878, i.e. south to Panama and including the entire West Indes. The first and natural question to be asked was, "How many species are there in the new list ? ?'
This I could not answer, for double the number con- tained in the Osten Sacken catalogue does not convey a very clear idea of the number of species recorded, so that an actual count seemed to be the only solu- tion ; a single count, barring all synonyms and cross references, but including all uunrecognizable'7 and doubtful species, gave 8,191 ; if to this we add the species described in 1904 as given in the appendix (about 229), we have a total of 8,420 species. It would be safe to cancel the 420 and to say there are probably about 8,000 described species.
The author's loyalty to Baron Osten Sacken, who laid the foundation for dipterological study in America, is beyond question, while the following expres- sion shows the true spirit in which a work of this kind should be produced: "I have been influenced by the feeling that my catalogue must represent the actual condition of classification not merely my own views." A catalogue is not the place for radical changes, "fixity" should be the guiding star, and it is only from this standpoint that I wish to criticise. When types exist we cannot ignore the species until the types have been thoroughly studied; because the types repre- sent two species is no reason for dropping the name and adopting a more recent one, unless both species have been previously described ; species should be selected by elimination, the same as genera. I refer principally to Miss Gertrude Ricardo's papers on the Tabanidae in the British Museum collection, published in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 1900-1902, and adopted by Hine in his Tabanidae of Ohio. This would make the following changes in the Pn&e 12:77-78 (IWS). hup Wpsycht emclub nrgtW12-(177.htiiil



================================================================================

7 8 PLY YCHE June-August
genus Chrysops astuans V.d.W., 1867,=nzterens Walker, 1848 ; atropos 0. S. 1'8ys,=divisus Walker, I 848 ; fugax 0. S. 187 5,=carboaarius Walker, 1848 ; furcatus Walker, is a good species and not a syn. of striatus 0. S. In the Stratiomyidae there are the following omissions : Euparyfhus major Hine (Ohio Nat. I., 112, I~OI), and Akronia frontosa Hine (Z. c, I 13). Pach-
gaster nzacuZicornis Hine, belongs to the genus ATeopachygas/er of Austen. In the Bombylidae I note the absence of Systoechus solitus Walker, a species which seems to be quite distinct from vu&aris. The name of Hyperalonia ser- veillei Macquart, presents an interesting question in nomenclature,-whether a name based on what is apparently a recognizable figure, but without a descrip- tion or locality, shall be accepted. The BornbyZius /hiZadeIphicus of the New Jersey list is a very different species from the B. mexicanus Wiedeman, but whether it represents Macquart's species is somewhat doubtful. Lestomyia faZZii Coquillett, and Erax dubius Will. seem to be omitted. Erax
albibarbis, Macq., I 839, should be the species, not c'inerascens Bellardi, 186 I. HoZo$ogon phiZadeIphicus Schiner, is undoubtedly a synonym of gn-ttula Wied. I
only note the omission of Criorhina nigra, Will. (Synopsis, p. 214), in the Syr- phidae.
. A name omitted in the Dexiidae is Mefadexiaflavipes Coq. The type is in
my collection, it has proved to be a synonym of TheZairodes basalis Giglio-7'0s. We cannot blame the author for overlooking Phorbia cepetorum Meade, published under the title, "Annotated List of British Anthomyiidae," in the Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, March, 1882, p. 2 18, where he also refers to American speci-
mens received from Professor Lintner of Albany. I beg to differ with the author in regard to ignoring recognizable descrip- tions where no locality is given, noticeably, the use of Aå´mphicm$hesper/usu Loew, 1873, instead of plla Wiedemann, 1830, and of Ischnomyia vittula Loew, 1863, in place of aZbicosta Walker, 1849. Tephronota narytia Walker, 1849, will have to be adopted in place of ruficefi Van der Wulp, 1867, notwithstanding the fact that of the "four specimens in the British Museum, two of them are Chtopsis am and that one of these bears Walker's label, 'Narytia' ", (Osten Sacken Cat., p. 260), the description applies very clearly to the other two, and not to C. tenea, Wied. Sepsisoma fluvescens Johnson, Tephritis nora Doane, Ophthal- momyia bis&-nata Coq., Eudicrana obumbrata Loew, and Nycteribia beZZardi Rond., seem to be omitted. Considering the amount of work involved in prepar- ing a catalogue of this kind, the omissions are very few and the author deserves all the praise it is possible to give for his careful and thorough work. C. W. J.




================================================================================