'2 HENRY F. CARTER. 



to examine the majority of the known species of this genus, including L. stygius. 

 and have thus been able to decide certain questionable morphological characters 

 which were largely responsible for the previous confusion. The new species 

 described herein were received from the Imperial Bureau of Entomology (per 

 Dr. G. A. K. Marshall), the British Museum (per Mr. F. W. Edwards), and the 

 United States National Museum (per Prof. L. O. Howard and Dr. J. M. Aldrich) ; 

 the types and co-types of these species have been returned to the collections 

 from which they came, as subsequently indicated at the^end of the respective 

 descriptions. 



Synonymy and Classification. 



Skuse's definition of Leptoconops is as follows : — " Antennae in the female 2 + 

 11-jointed ; first joint of scapus large, chsciform ; second smaller, globose ; flagellar 

 joints globose, gradually diminishing in size, more ovate towards the apex, terminal 

 joint elongate-ovate. Proboscis prominent. Palpi four-jointed ; first and second 

 joints small, third greatly incrassated, about three times the length of the first or 

 second ; fourth not as long as the last, slender, cylindrical. Wings naked. All 

 longitudinal veins taking their origin at the base of the wing. Marginal cross-vein 

 present. Middle cross- vein wanting. Fourth and fifth longitudinal veins only 

 forked." 



In 1893 Townsend founded the genus Tersesthes, but although acquainted with 

 Skuse's work, would seem not to have appreciated the close resemblance between 

 his genus and Leptoconops. Practically the only points of difference between the 

 two genera that can be obtained from his description are that the palpi are composed 

 of three segments and the wings covered with microscopic hairs ; but in his figure 

 of the wing the costa is extended to the apex, terminating near the upper branch 

 of the fourth vein. 



Noe (1905) erected the genus Mycterotypns for two Itahan midges. He was, 

 however, doubtful as to its distinctiveness from Leptoconops and Tersesthes, and 

 was unable to decide whether the differences between these two genera and 

 Mycterotypus were real or apparent. But in view of the facts that he could 

 distinguish satisfactorily only three palpal segments, that the venation apparently 

 differed in several particulars, and chiefly that he believed the " cerci " (lamellae) 

 to be absent in Leptoconops, he finally resolved to place his species in a separate 

 genus. 



Johannsen (1905) concluded that Leptoconops and Tersesthes were very closely 

 related, if not identical and that they could only be distinguished by the segmentation 

 of the palpi. Kieffer (1906), however, retained all three of these genera, but subse- 

 quently (1908) suggested that they were probably synonymous and that Townsend's 

 figure of the wing showing the extension of the costa to the apex was inaccurate. 

 Langeron (1913), after studying the venation of a Tunisian species and the figures 

 of the wings of Leptoconops and Tersesthes, considered the former genus and 

 Mycterotypus very nearly allied, but expressed surprise that Kieffer should think 

 Tersesthes and the latter identical. Lutz (1913) was the first author who actually- 

 compared specimens of any of these genera ; he examined both of Noe's species of 

 Mycterotypus and Townsend's Tersesthes torrens. and definitely decided that they 

 were congeneric. De Meijere (1915) briefly discussed the differences which existed, 

 or were said to exist, between the three genera, and concluded by adopting Kieffer's 

 suggestion of identity and listing all the species then known under Leptoconops. The 

 latter author, however, does not appear to have reached a definite decision in this 

 regard, for although placing Tersesthes and Mycterotypus under Leptoconops, he 

 yet (1917 and 1918) retains the names to indicate groups of species ; moreover, in 

 spite of previous suggestions of inaccuracy, he (1917) still accepts Townsend's 

 interpretation of the wing venation, but employs it for purposes of specific 

 differentiation ! 



