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



Tceniorhynchus is somewhat restricted and, as it stands, seems to 

 represent a natural group, at least as far as the species known to us are 

 concerned. The name, however, is obviously wrong according to the 

 canons of nomenclature. The type is tceniorhynchus Wied., by the 

 rule of tautonomy, and the question of the identification of Arribal- 

 zaga's specimens is outside the matter. The name rightly should re- 

 place Ciilicelsa as used by Theobald. 



Chrysoconops Goeldi is used for nine species, of which fulvus 

 Wied. is the only one known to us. This has been considered a 

 Psorophora by Mr. Coquillett, from the single specimen which has 

 outstanding scales on- the legs. This character, however, is entirely 

 without value in generic diagnosis, and we agree with Mr. Theobald 

 X}ci.2X fulvus is not a Psorophora. It is, in our opinion, an A'edes near 

 bimaculatus Coq., and the genus Chrysoconops should be placed as a 

 synonym of A'edes. 



The Uranottenin^ (credited to Miss Mitchell instead of Lahille, 

 1904 !) are recognized as a subfamily, with the definition " first fork- 

 cell is veiy stnall, ■aX^'2i^% smaller than the second posterior cell.'*' 

 Nevertheless, in the table Mimomyia Theob. is included with " first 

 fork-cell nearly as large as the second posterior cell," which begins 

 to cast doubt on the subfamily character, and finally this is completely 

 vitiated by the inclusion oi Anisocheleoinyia (?) albitarsis Ludlow with 

 ^' first sub-marginal cell nearly a half longer . . . than the second 

 posterior cell." That is, in order to find a species by Theobald's 

 book, we must look in a subfamily and genus from which, on his own 

 ■definitions and tables it is positively excluded ! 



We are unable to distinguish UranotcEuia viinuta Theob. from the 

 previously described U. lowii T\ito\)., nor are specimens before us from 

 Georgetown, British Guiana (the type locality), which have been 

 kindly communicated to us by Dr. Rowland, to be distinguished. 

 Probably Mr. Theobald ha5 "forgotten" that he had already de- 

 scribed the species, and so gave us a second name. 



Lepidophitys Coq. is used for squamiger Coq. and sylvicola Grossb. 

 (rightly grossbecki D. & K. ), but the two are not separated, the 

 description being taken from adults supplied by Dr. Felt. We might 

 judge what they were by the locality, but this is not mentioned. 

 .Si]uamiger\)X^^di% in salt tide- water on the coast of southern California, 

 while grossbecki inhabits woodland pools in the Atlantic states. The 

 larvee of both are typical A'edes allied to canadensis. A separate 

 genus for these species is totally unnecessary. 



