244 Journal New York Entomological Society. [Voi. xv. 



that the rva.mGfasciata Fab. cannot be used, but he retains the name 

 nevertheless " to avoid endless confusion." It appears to us that this 

 only increases the confusion, since all recent writers have abandoned 

 the name fasciata. A figure is given labeled " male genitalia of 

 Stegomyia sinipsoni Theobald." The side pieces and clasp filament 

 are shown and two basal hairs. Are we to infer that this species is 

 devoid of harpes, harpagones and unci ? If so, we wonder it has not 

 been made the basis of a subfamily. 



The new genus Pseudohozuardina is proposed for our trivittata 

 Coq., on scale characters entirely. 



A figure of the male genitalia of Culiciomyia inornata Theob. is an 

 unintelligible muddle. We see a clasp filament on the left, on the 

 right an unattached piece which looks as much like a distorted set of 

 marginal processes of the side piece of a Ctilex as anything. Culic- 

 iomyia anmilata Theob. is likewise figured and almost equally unin- 

 telligible. It is a pity that the structures were not better drawn, as 

 they are apparently peculiar. 



The description of Gnophodeomyia inornata Theob. in the Journal 

 of Economic Biology had escaped us ; but specimens received from 

 Dr. Rowland appear to be an ordinary Cnlex. The new genus Pro- 

 tomacleaya is made for our triseriatus Say. A portion of the male 

 genitalia oi Pecomyia tnaculata Theob. are shown, just enough to excite 

 our interest, without conveying any valuable information. Again 

 these parts of Pseiidotheobaldia niveitcBniata Theob. are figured with 

 the essential parts slurred over by the artist, so as to be unrecognizable. 

 Of Grabhatnia zvillcocksii Theob. more is shown, but not all. Appar- 

 ently none of Mr. Theobald's preparations are properly made, except 

 perhaps that of Culicada tvaterhoiisei Theob. which is almost recog- 

 nizable. 



The genus Culicada Felt is used for 24 species. Mr. Theobald 

 says "the type of this genus should be Meigen's cantons, not my 

 Culex canadensis. ^^ But as Felt specified canadensis as the type, the 

 remark is meaningless, except as illustrating the author's ignorance of 

 all rules of nomenclature. Subcantans, fitchii and abfitchii are sepa- 

 rated by the markings on the thorax, and large figures are given of 

 them. This is all very well for single specimens, but with long series 

 of each species before us we have been unable to determine any, con- 

 stant diagnostic characters between the three species. O?iondagensis 

 Felt is included and called " evidently a very distinct species," yet 



