NOTES. 221 



Acyplwnn ; T. trivialis is a species which requires further study, ami 

 seems related to Trimirra; T. icterica has an altogether different orga- 

 nisation and has been placed by Loew in his genus Lipsotlirix (Beschr. 

 Europ. Dipt., Vol. Ill, p. 68) ; T. imbuta of which I had only a glimpse, 

 seems to be an Empeda; the residue (T. fuscipennis, flavescens, taenio- 

 nota) form the bulk of E)-ioptcra Meigen, Division A, and should 

 therefore retain that name, even in the ultimate subdivision of the genus : 

 they are my Eriopterae, sensu strictiori. 



These criticisms, will not, I hope, bo considered disrespectful to 

 those two writers , my seniors in Dipterology, and by far my superiors 

 in the knowledge of most of its branches. 



31. Symplecta punctipennis. Dr. Loew, in his Beschreibungen 

 Europ. Dipteren III, p. 54, observes that Meigen, in his earlier work: 

 KJassification etc. called the same species liyhrida, a name which he 

 afterwards changed, without explaining the reason, in punctipennis. 

 Loew therefore recommends the reinstatement of that name, as the 

 earliest. But why should we not, on the same ground, revive the generic 

 name Hehbia St. Fargeau, which is older than SympUcta, and call the 

 species Hehbia liybrida? And as Symplecia punctipennis has been 

 used in all the works and catalogues of diptera in existence for more 

 than half a century, we would never get rid of it, but would have to 

 keep both names in our memory for ever. For this reason, I do not 

 share the opinion of my esteemed friend and correspondent. 



32. Goniomyia. I am aware of the existence ot Goniomya Agassiz 

 (Mollusca), but the derivation, at well as the termination of that name 

 are different. 



38. Limnophila humeralis Say. Journ. Acad. Phil. Ill, 22, 5; 

 Compl. Wr. II, 47. "Wiedemann unites this species with L. tennipes 

 Say, apparently deriving his opinion from the comparison of original 

 specimens. Nevertheless, Say does not seem to have been of the same 

 opinion. In a MSS. note in his handwriting, which I found in a copy 

 of ^Yiedemann^s Auss. Zw. , which he had used, he refers L. temdpes 

 to L. gracilis Wied. The book is now in the library of the Academy 

 of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. (Compare also Monogr. etc IV, 

 p. 41.) A specimen in the Winthem collection in Vienna, which I take 

 to be the type of the description of L. gracilis, in labelled tenuis W. 



34. Anisomera. About the european species, compare Loew in 

 the Zeitschr. I Ges. Naturw. Vol. XXVI (1865). 



35. Enocera californica. In describing this species in the Western 

 Diptera, I mentioned that Megistocera chilensis Philippi, was, to all 

 appearances, likewise an Erioeera. But I have seen it since in ^Ir. 

 Bigot's collection; it is a Megistocera, that is a Tipulid and not a 

 Limnobid. 



36. Ptyctoptera. The trophi of the larvae of this genus do not 

 differ materially from those of the other Tipulidae; the characteristic 

 dentate mentum is present. For this reason I am not inclined to follow 

 Dr. Brauer in attaching to the fact, that the head of those larvae is 

 not imbedded in the thoracic skin (as it is in other Tipulidae) such a 



