104 STUDIES IN AMERICAN EPHYDRIDAE (dIPTERA) 



page 201, considers the Ofversigt as having prioritj^ but as the 

 name Paralimna is given only in combination with the newly 

 described species, without any diagnosis, he does not consider 

 such citation as establishing the generic name. In his Mono- 

 graph Loew does state "The characters of this genus , of which I 

 hitherto only know South African and North American Spe- 

 cies . . . .", and one might infer from this that Loew had 

 published on this genus, but on the other hand he may have had 

 such a paper only in preparation or only such specimens before 

 him at that time. I cannot find the actual date of issue of that 

 part of the Ofversigt, but should it have ])een published prior 

 to that of the first volume of the Monographs (April 1862), 

 then I herewith designate Paralimna confusa Loew as the type 

 species of this genus. Until such priority be proven, the present 

 geno-type, Paralimna appendiculata Loew, must stand. Only one 

 species was given under the generic description in the Mono- 

 graphs. 



There are a few species described, mostly from the neotropics, which I have 

 been unable to locate in my material, mainly on account of inadequate original 

 descriptions. Rather than risk misidentification I prefer not to consider the 

 names of such species. The correct status of these will be easily found when 

 the types are examined and redescribed more accurately. Following is a 

 list of these unrecognizable species with their original references: 

 1868. Paralivma secunda Schiner, Reise Novara, Zool., ii. Dipt., 241, [S. Am.] 

 1868. Paralimna molossus Schiner, Reise Novara, Zool., iii, Dipt., 242, [S. Am.] 

 1896. Paralimna multipunctata Will., Tr. Ent. Soc. London, 1896, 390, [St. 



Vincent.] 

 1902. Paralimna nuda Coq., Jour. N. Y. Ent. Soc, x, 182, [Mexico.] (This 



I have referred to the genus Oedenops Becker.) 



The species possessing the generic characters as above given 

 fall into two groups which are treated here as subgenera. These 

 may ultimately prove to be valid genera, but from the present 

 knowledge of the species I cannot consider them as such. 



The two subgenera may be conveniently separated as follows: 

 The entire thorax and venter unicolourous; face less prominent . . Phaiosterna 

 Pleura and venter more or less cinereous, contrasting with the dorsum; face 



large, swollen and prominent Paralimna 



Phaiosterna new subgenus 

 The species comprising this subgenus are so different from all 

 the others in their color pattern and hardly less so in a few 

 structural characters, that one naturally places them aside when 



