92 XEAV YORK STATE MUSEUM 



jrp Front metatarsi shorter than their tibiae 

 q Thorax produced conically in front 

 over the head ; hind tibiae dilated 

 and hairy, pi. 34. fig.24 



43. E u r y e n e m u s 

 (/(/ 'I'horax moderately produced ; hind 

 tibiae not dilated 



44. ;M e t r i o c n e m u s 

 ee Antennae with thirteen to fifteen joints 



f Antennae fifteen-jointed ; European and tropic genera 

 g Wing hyaline ; legs very long ; antennal joints of varying 



lengths, pi. 35, figs. 1, 2, 3 30. M a c r o p e z a 



(j(j Wings six)tted (West Indies and Mexico) ....5. Oecacta 

 ff Antennae with fourteen or fewer j^oints 



(J Thorax rounded and not produced over the head ; antennae 

 with thirteen or fourteen joints ; legs of moderate length 

 h Antennae with thirteen joints ; wing venation as shown 

 on pi. 35, figs. 10 and 14 

 i Palpi with three joints. (This is probably a synonym 



of tlie next) -. 2. T e r s e s t h e s 



ii Palpi with four joints 1. Leptoeonops 



hh Antennae with fourteen joints, plumose in the male, 

 sparsely haired in the female ; wing venation as on 



pi. 17, figs. 13 to IG ( Group C e r a t o p o g o n) 



i Wings hairy ; last joint of tarsus with an empodium 

 ;■ Empodium well developed ; almost as long as the 

 claws, these without setae, pl.18, fig.7 



3. C e r a t o p g o n 

 k Hind metatarsi shorter than the second tarsal 

 joint, or both of equal length 



(Sub. gen. Forcipomyia)' 

 Jik Hind metatarsus longer than the second joint 



( Sub. gen. Ceratopogon) 



jj Empodium not .so distinct, less than half as long as 



the claws ; tliese furnished with setae on the under 



side, pl.18, fig.S 4. Culicoides 



n Wings bare; pulvilli and empodium wanting 



;■ Wing with Ri distinctly separated from R2+3 and not 

 connected with it by tlie crossvein-like R2, pl.l7, 



fig, 15 6. B e z z i u 



jj Wing with IL present; colls sometimes indistinct. 

 pl.l7, figs. 13, 14, 10 

 A; Media wanting, pi. 17. fig.l3 



7. Brachypogon 



'According to Kieffer (1902) this sul)genus can not stand, because in some 

 species one sex would be classed here and (he other sex ^v^th the next 

 subgenus. 



