1920 J E. Brunetti : Oriental tfc S. Astatic Nemocera 187 



mirabilis de Meij., Tijd. v. Eiit. LVIII, 104, fig. i, wing (1915). 

 Id., Nov. Guin. Res. XIII, 51 (1915). 

 Papua. 



Sub-family TIPULIN.E. 



Section Ctenophorini.' 



Xiphura, Brulle. 



Ann. Soc. Ent. Fran. I, 206 (1832). 

 Genotype, Tipiila alrata L., the original 

 species. 



indica Brun., Rec. Ind. Mus. XV, 257, pi. viii, i, antenna (1918). 

 Darjiling 6900 ft, i-vi-t7. A perfect unique & in my own 

 collection, taken b^' me. 



Ctenophora, Mg. 



Illig. Mag II, 263 (1803). 

 Sch., F. Austr. II, 498: Ost. Sack., Berl. Ent. 

 Zeits. XXX. 164: Brun., Rec. Ind. Mus. VI, 

 235 : Fauna Brit. Ind., 288 : Auctt. 

 Genotype, Tipula flaveolala F. , designated by 

 Rondani, 1856.* 

 Tanvplera, Latr., Nouv. Diet. Hist. Nat., 428 

 (1804). 



'■ For characters, r. Ost. Sack., Berl. Ent. Zeits.. xxx, 164, ef seq : and 

 Brun., Fauna, 287. 



■' .A little investigation will, I think, show that Coquillett's desire (1910) to 

 restrict Ctenophora to atrata I,, and its allies, and to set up Phoroctenia for the 

 remaining species of Ctenophora in a wide sense, is wrong. He accepts Latrcillc's 

 designation (if<io I of fl<r«/a I,, as t\pe species of Ctenophora, which would have 

 therefore left the bulk of the remaining species of the genus without a name, hut 

 there may be a flaw in his reasoning which will save the name of Meigen's genus 

 for the group of species so long associated with it. Meigen in 1803 I lllig- MigO 

 set up Ctenophora ior pectinicornis \. , himaculata I.., atrata 1*., and flaveolala 

 F". Two years later l.atreille erected Tanyptera (or atrata i.. So far as can be 

 judged at this length of time, the genus was not favourabi)' received, all the 

 species being still retained in Ctenophora. In 1810 l.atreille apparently himself 

 acquiesced in this view as he selected atrata as the type of Ctenophora. In 1.S32 

 Brulle proposed Xiphura with atrata as the sole species, and in 1H33 Dictenidia 

 with A. bimactilata L. as type and these genera were practically universally 

 .'idopted. Rondani in his list of Italian genera (Prodrome 1S56) accepted a^;-uM 

 as type species of Xiphura and selected flaveolata (one of Meigen's four original 

 species) as type of Ctenophora, and this view, so far as I am aware, was not 

 challenged. By general consent for the last three quarters of .1 century, atrata has 

 been regarded as not congeneric with the other species of the old Ctenophora, and 

 the only question to settle is in which genus it should be placed. Meigen selected 

 no type species out of the four on whiih he founded Ctenophora ; therefore 

 Latreillc in selecting a/ra/u as type of his Tanyptera (1H05) has undoubtedly prior 

 claim to the species, as it was the sole exponent of his genus, and the fact that the 

 dipterologists of his day apparently ignored the genus does not prevent it being 

 resuscitated if originally legitimately founded. Therefore when l.atreille himself, 

 in 1810, ac<|uiescing in the suppression of Tanvplera. selected atrata as the type 

 species of Ctenophora, he went beyond his rights. Xiplnira in 1832, also founded 

 on atrata alone becomes an absolute synonym of Tanyptera. Rondani, rei og- 



