AMALOPIS 265 



the absence of a diseal cell of this species, and says that it is the 

 type of a new genus Amalopis. In the Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. 

 Philad. 1859, p. 245, I have further developed this suggestion, 

 by adding to the characters of Amalopis the position of the sub- 

 costal cross-veiu, and establishing upon that character the group 

 of Pedicimformia (now Amalopiyia). At that time I described 

 three North American species, to which I have since (Proc, etc. 

 1861, p. 291) added two new ones. Dr. Schiner (Fauna Austr. 

 Diptera, 1864, Vol. II, p. 52*7) referred to Amalopis the European 

 species belonging to it, and which had been previously mixed up 

 with the Limnobise. 



Crunohia,. a generic name proposed by Kolenati for Amalopis 

 schineri Kol. (Wien. Entom. Ilonaischr. lY, p. 393; 1860), is 

 a synonym of Amalopis. 



The genus Tricyphona, established by Zetterstedt, in the Ins. 

 Lapponica, 1840, and retained in all the later publications, even 

 in Dr. Schiner's Fauna Austriaca, Diptera, is, according to my 

 opinion, not sufficiently distinguished from Amalojns, to be re- 

 tained as a separate genus. I suspected this already in 1859, 

 but it has become evident to me recently, since I obtained speci- 

 mens of T. immaculala M., the only species upon which this 

 genus is based. If T. imviaculata has been separated from 

 Limnobia so early, it was principally on account of its diseal 

 cell being always open, a character of altogether secondary im- 

 portance. Although the name Tricyphona is older than Ama- 

 lopis, I believe that, as a matter both of right and of expediency, 

 the latter name has to be maintained.^ The genus BojjJirosia 

 Rondani, is a synonym of Tricyphona. 



' The almost absolute rules of priority recognized for specific names are 

 not equally applicable to the generic ones. In the present instance the 

 .genus Amalopis may be said to have been unknown until 1856, when Mr. 

 Haliday pointed out one of its principal features, and 1859, when I showed 

 its true extent and defined its character. Zetterstedt's definition of Tricy- 

 phona is not applicable to Amalopis, as it is principally based upon the 

 absence of the diseal cell, a character of mere casual occurrence. If the 

 mere invention of a name gave a right to priority, we should call Rhajn- 

 phidia bj the name of Ilelius St. Fargeau, and adopt Jlelobia St. Fargeau, 

 instead of Symplecta. 



