386 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



Altogether, then, perhaj)s a hundred generic nam^s have been offered 

 for the acceptance of students of Diptera. 



Coquillett, in his recent paper on the North American mosquitoes, 

 has attempted to define forty-one genera, eighteen of which contain a 

 single species each, and eight others but two species each. The whole 

 number of species included in these forty-one genera is about one 

 hundred and forty, or an average of about three and a half species to each 

 genus. It might be added, for the encouragement of the genus maker, 

 that there is still room for nearly one hundred genera before each of our 

 species has a generic name all to itself — and there seem to be plenty 

 of cliaracters, such as they are, for the manufacture of these new "genera." 



And what is the result ? As has been said by others, and as I can 

 corroborate, for the most part it is simplest to determine the species first 

 from their descriptions, and then, of course, the generic determinations are 

 easily ascertained by reference to the catalogues. And there has been not 

 a little guessing done by some of tlie most prolific writers, as might be 

 shown, were it worth while. 



It is Theobald to whom we are indebted for the larger part of the 

 ])roposed genera. He urged, and rightly, that there were too few genera, for 

 convenience sake. It is very true that, in some other families of Diptera, 

 as, for example, the Tabanidae, we are not greatly disturbed by large num- 

 bers of species in a genus, and even reject many proposed divisions that do 

 not divide. I frankly confess that I am so old-fashioned that a genus means 

 something more to me than an additional name for a species, and do not 

 like to see divisions made on the score of convenience alone. Venational 

 and plastic differences there are few among the mosquitoes ; palpal and 

 antennal characters it was thought had been used to their limitj and there 

 seemed nothing left but the character of the vestiture. Theobald insists 

 that he has found trustworthy generic characters in the shape and distri- 

 bution of the scales of the body and wings. In a measure he may be 

 right, but when it comes to the differentiation of genera, and even 

 subfamilies, by the aid of a few scales alone (e. g., Phagomyia, Theobald, 

 " is allied to StegOfnyia, but is separated by the narrow-curved scales on 

 the lateral lobes of the scutellum "!) whether they are broad or narrow, 

 curved or straight (Theobald lists seventeen kinds of scales), with their 

 countless permutations in the different parts of the body, I protest that 



triviality has reached its limit. He insists that if a horse were covered 

 with scales instead of hair it would be at once recognized as of a different 

 genus from Equns. I have been a student of the vertebrates for thirty 



