S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 64. (Budapest, 2003)
name: Mycomya cinerascens (Macquart, 1826), M. circumdata (Staeger, 1840), M. flavicollis (Zetterstedt, 1852), M. marginata (Meigen, 1818), M. occultons (Winnertz, 1863): M. prominens (Lundström, 1913), M. ruficollis (Zetterstedt, 1852), M. tenuis (Walker, 1856), M. tridens (Lundström, 1911), M. trilineata (Zetterstedt, 1838), M. winnertzi (Dziedzicki, 1885). The first reliable records for those species are given in Papp & Sevcík (2001) and the voucher specimens are in the collection of the HNHM. I consider the Hungarian record of M. ornata (Meigen, 1818) (Väisänen 1988: 227) as not substantiated. The original record is in all probability from Thaihammer (1900). Here I would like to make a note on the publication date of Väisänen (1988). It is misleading indeed, since the MS of the Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera was submitted sometime in 1980 or more probably in 1981, and although that part was published as late as 1988, it was not actualised (this is the case also with most parts of the CPD). Consequently, results of Väisänen's (1984) magnum opus were not included in the Catalogue. Anyway, M. ornata (Meigen, 1818) was not recorded from Hungary by Väisänen (1984). It is a matter of course that also this species is expected to occur in Hungary. M. neohyalinata Väisänen, 1984 (op. cit. p. 147) was seemingly and erroneously omitted from our list. The name M. hyalinata (Meigen, 1830) was used after Dziedzicki by all authors, inch the modern ones for the biological species, which must be named as M. neohyalinata. This is the consequence of Väisänen's study of Meigen's type, which is a specimen of M. cinerascens (Macquart, 1826), as published by him in 1984. In addition, the only specimen correctly identified from Hungary by Väisänen in 1981 (see below) was kept with the collection label "hyalinata" in the HNHM. It is my mistake that this change of names was not considered while making the MS of the checklist. Mycomya tumida (Winnertz, 1863) was first reported by Thalhammer ( 1900: 12) as "Sciophila tumida Winn." which is a questionable record, and unfortunately the voucher specimen(s) was/were perished in 1956. Väisänen's (1988: 229) record was probably based on Thalhammer's. Väisänen's (1984: 57) record from "Czibles" is not from Hungary but from Romania (Transsylvania). Consequently, reliable record or voucher specimens from Hungary cannot be accepted or known prior to the data below, so this species is regarded as new to Hungary here. The names of Sciophila nigriceps Loew, 1873 (p. 36, type locality not specified, "Pannónia inferiori. ..") and Sciophila pollens Loew, 1873 (p. 35; type locality not specified, "Pannónia inferiori...") had to be listed in our 2001 checklist, although the identity of those two species will never been clarified. In order to correct the Mycomya part of the checklist and to supplement the meagre Hungarian list, I identified the 1000 specimens of Mycomya in the collec-