KOTES. 219 



carefully pointed them out in my volume. The Eriopterina especially, 

 require a more thorough investigation, based on more abundant materials 

 than I had at my disposal; the relations'of Gonlomyia to GonopTiomyia 

 must be more clearly defined; the genera Cladura, Sigmatomera, 1'lnjllohibis, 

 as they stand now, come within dangerous proximity of the Limno- 

 plt/li)ta and their true position is still a problem. In the Limnophilina, 

 the numerous species of Limnophila, require a better grouping: I have 

 shown, for instance, on p. 201 and 230, that the presence of four, or 

 of five posterior cells , is an altogether secondary character and that 

 some species with four cells , like C. quaclrata, are very closely related 

 to some other species, with five cells. Numerous hints of that kind 

 will be found in my volume, hints which, at that time, it was not 

 possible as yet to develop: but in order to be made use of, there hints 

 must be sought in that volume, and not in the adaptations of my 

 classification in other writers. Most of the entomologists who have 

 adopted my classification, have become acquainted with it through Dr. 

 Schiner's work. But that work was based on my earlier essay (1859), 

 and does not contain the improvements, introduced in my later, and 

 more voluminous, publication of 1869. 



26. Limnobia simulans. I prefer to retain the name which I gave 

 to this species: Mr. Walker's description is absolutely unrecognizable, 

 as I have shown in Monogr. IV, p. 41. 



27. Trochobola argus. This species hardly differs from the european 

 Trocliobola anmdata Lin. (Syn. impcrialis Loew). During my presence 

 in London in July 1877 I had occasion again to see Linne's type of 

 Tipula cuundcda in the Linn. Society and can only confirm the statement 

 which I made after my previous visit to the same institution , twenty 

 five years ago : that Tipula anmdnta Lin. is the same as Limnobia 

 imiirrialis Loew. (See Stett. Ent. Zeitschr. 1857, p. 90.) The specimen 

 is a fragment, but the supernumerary crossvein is distinctly visible on 

 the wing. Thus much in answer to Prof. Zetterstedt's doubts in the 

 Dipt. Scand. Vol. XIV, p. 6534. The fact that Prof. Zetterstedt, during 

 his long dipterological career, never came across a Swedish specimen 

 of this insect, is curious. By and by it will be found there. In the 

 mean time, Prof. Mik in Vienna showed me specimens which he 

 caught in Upper Austria and in Gastein, Styria. The Imperial Museum 

 in Vienna (Collect. Winthem), contains a specimen from Lyon, France. 

 It seems to be a nothern and alpine species; and many alpine forms 

 (for instance Parnassius Apollo), occur in the mountains of the Dauphine 

 not far from Lyon. Prof. Mik also found Limnobia caesarea 0. S. 

 near Gastein. 



28. Diotrepha nov. gen. Eelated to Orimarga (compare the figure 

 of the wing in Monographs, IV, Tab. I, f. 8), but the posterior branch of the 

 fourth vein is not forked, so that there are only three posterior cells; 

 the small crossvein is nearer to the apex of the wing; the great 

 crossvein, on the contrary, is much nearer to the root of the wing, 

 far anterior to the origin of the second vein. Being thus placed in a 

 situation where the longitudinal veins come very close together, this 



