40 [Februaiy, 



ON THE NEW NOMENCLATURE OF HIE FAMILY CECIDOMYIM, 

 ADOPTED BY MR. RUIJSAAMEN AND OTHERS. 



BY BARON C. K. v. d. OSTEN SACKEN, Hon. F.E.S. 



During my studies on Cecidomyidce in the United States, I have 

 had occasion to become acquainted with the history of their classifica- 

 tion, and when Dr. Karsch, in his Inaugural Dissertation (Revision 

 der Gallmilcken, Miinster, 1S77), made an attempt to change the at 

 that time existing nomenclature, in virtue (as he thought) of the 

 p7'inciple of priority, I was fully prepared to interpose my objection 

 in my Cat. N. A. Dipt., 2d ed., 1878, p. 215, where I said, " that the 

 general adoption of these changes does not seem at all desirable." 

 Dr. Karsch's principal innovation consisted in assuming that Meigen's 

 original Cecidomyia (IHig. Mag., 1803) should be considered as a sy- 

 nonym of Diplosis, Loew (1850), because the species adopted by 

 Meigen as type in 1808 (Tipula pini, Deg.) was a Diplosis (Karsch, 

 /. c, p. 11). 



Mr. E. H. Eiibsaamen, a colleague of Dr. Karsch in the Berlin 

 Museum, adopted this view in his paper. Die Gallmiicken des Konigl. 

 Mus., &c., in Berlin (Berl. Ent. Z., 1892), and introduced other inno- 

 vations, the ultimate result of which was that, contrai'y to the general 

 rule of nomenclature, the generic name of Cecidomyia. was dropped, 

 and other genera substituted for it : Oliyofrophus, Latr., Itho2)nlocera, 

 n. g., Dichelomyia, n. g., &c. (/. c., p. 320). 



To Mr. Eiibsaamen belongs the undoubted merit of having in- 

 troduced an improved method of the scientific study of the Cecidomyidce^ 

 and of developing it since with remarkable diligence. It would have 

 appeared invidious on my part to interfere with his success by pub- 

 lishing at that time a criticism of his nomenclature, and I have 

 preferred therefore to inform him privately of my disagreement with 

 him. As he did not accept my opinion, I see no reason why I should 

 (after an interval of eight years) withhold it any longer from the 

 public. 



The first steps, both of Meigen and Latreille, in defining the 

 concept of Cecidomyia, were merely tentative. In " Tlliger's Magazin" 

 (1803) Meigen founded this genus upon De Geer's figure of his Tipula 

 pini. The short definition is taken from this figure : " Antenna? por- 

 rect, bent upwards, knotty, bristly (knotig, borstig) ; 24-jointed in 

 the male, 12-jointcd in the female." The same definition is found in 

 Meigen's " Klassification," &c. (ISOi). Meigen had never seen the 

 insect, and, as late as lsl8, in his System. Beschr., i, p. 99, he mentions 



