170 [Berliner Entomolog. Zeitschrift Bd. XL, Jahrg. 1895, Heft L] 



Correction to my paper: Three Trochobolae etc. 



(Berl. Ent. Zeitschr. 1894, p. 264), 

 by C. R. Osten Sacken. 



In Publishing my paper „Three Trochobolae", which I had kept 

 in my drawer for several years, I forgot to consult the new publica- 

 tions, issued in the mean time. F. A. A. Skuse of Sydney called my 

 attention to his Trochohola australis (Proc. Lin. Soc. N.S.W. lY, 

 p. 784, Tab. 21, f. 7, 1889) and the probability of its being the sanie 

 as T. tessellata. There is no doubt that he is right. I found the 

 wing-pattern of tessellata exactiy siniihir to that of T. argus from 

 N. A. (comp. Mon. N. A. Dipt. IV, Tab. I, f. 4); the figure given by 

 Skuse answers this description. T. tessellata. White has never 

 been described; the question is whether my Statement about the wing- 

 pattern may be taken for an equivalent of a description? As Mr. Skuse 

 has given us, not only a detailed description, but a very correct 

 figure of the wing, and as his specimens are from Sydney, while those 

 of tessellata are from Tasmania, I should recommend the adoption 

 of the name australensis for the species, because its future Identi- 

 fication will thus become more certain. The notices I have published 

 about the specimens of tessellata examined by me in the Brit. Mus. 

 and in Oxford, and the ascertaining of their locality, Tasmania, 

 retain nevertheless their usefuhiess. 



During my stay in London in 1894, I became acquainted with 

 Mr. G. V. Hudson 's „Manual of New Zealand Entomology", London 

 1892, which, on plate 5, f. 2, gives a colored figure of a Tipiila fu- 

 hiipennis n. sp., and also of its larva and pupa. The letterpress, 

 p. 48, contains a notice about the habits of the larva, but not a word 

 of description of the imago. The figures leave much to be desired; 

 the characteristic crossvein of Trochobola is not marked, the wing- 

 l)attern, if it is intended to represent that of my T. Dohrni, is 

 hardly recognizable. Nevertheless, as the latter seems to be a common 

 species in N. Z. it is not impossible that the figure in the „Manual" 

 may have been intended for it. The specimen figured is a female, 

 and the description which I give of the „hyaline crossband" noticed 

 by me in the only specimen of that sex which I possess, corresponds 

 more or less to the figure. Under such circumstances, I leave it to 

 others to decide the question of priority. As the book may have 

 become populär in New Zealand, I would incline, as a matter of 

 expediency, to give up the name Dohrni, although the other name 

 fumipennis is not happily chosen. At any rate, my description will 

 be of use, as there is no other extant. 



Ausgegeben Mitte Februar 1895. 

 CarJ Fromholz Buchdruckerei, Berlin C, Neue Friedrichstr. 47. 



