388 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



Of all the writers, one would have thought that Coquillett would have 

 recalled the fate of Brauer's numerous " families " of the Tachinidte, and 

 have refrained from the use of such trivial characters. Think of it, a 

 subfamily distinguished ultimately by " broad " or "narrow" wing scales! 



But this is not the worst, though bad enough. Theobald found a 

 certain specimen with a scaled seventh wing vein, and straightway elevates 

 it to generic and subfamily rank, the Heptaphlebomyinjie ! Just 

 imagine that character or its equivalent being used singly as a subfamily 

 character in the allied families ! 



Nor is this all. Mr. Theobald has suggested, and I regret to see 

 that Coquillett, from whose wide acquaintance with Diptera we should 

 expect better things, adopts the suggestion, that the Corethrinse should be 

 separated from the Culicihce as a distinct family of Diptera; and, ergo, the 

 family Culicidae be raised to superfamily rank. Because, forsooth, 

 Corethra^ while identical in venation, bodily structure, larval habits and 

 structure, does not have piercing mouth organs. Imagine such a proposi- 

 tion coming from Loew, Schiner or Osten Sacken! Suppose we apply this 

 criterion elsewhere in the Diptera, and witness the results. Stoinoxys and 

 its allies become the Stomoxiidae (and the Muscinse are only a subfamily 

 at the best) ; Ceratopogoii and its allies the Ceratopogonidae (and the 

 group is far more widely separated from the other genera of the 

 Chironomidas) ; PJdebotomus the Phlebotomidie, etc. What a pretty 

 classification we should have if we used the mouth structure alone for 

 family divisions in the Tipulidae, Chironomid?e, Cecidomyidse, and the 

 Cyrtidae, for example. Even the Bombyliidee, and many of the groups of 

 the Muscidae, would be stampeded. Coquillett, at least, knows that the 

 three or four " new " families that have been proposed in recent years, all 

 of them with more distinctive characters than the Corethringe possess, 

 have been unanimously rejected by dipterologists. How, then, do the 

 culicidologists expect to receive greater consideration ? It would almost 

 seem that they consider themselves as without kin to other entomologists, 

 and that whatever they say is, ex cathedi'a, incontrovertible. 



There are but two subfamilies of the Culicidse, unless we admit the 

 Dixinse, which I strongly faivour, the Culicinne and Corethrin^, and any 

 groups of either are of lower rank, mere tribes. And we should not want 

 a dozen subfamilies if the genera had not been so debauched. 



But discussion is idle. The sanest classification so far is that of 

 Coquillett, but that is not saying a great deal. The family yet awaits a 

 thorough toxonomical revision. Meanwhile my advice to the general 

 student is to ignore all those genera based upon scale characters, and call 

 his species, as of yore, Cu/ex, yEdes, A?ioJ>/ieies, etc. 



