19] 8.] E. Brunetti: Oriental Tijndidae. 301 



In preparing my " Fauna " volume I relied mainly on Osten Sacken's 

 decision, one in which Kertesz apparently acquiesces in his catalogue 

 of the World's Diptera, but Professor Bergroth's recent plea^ for the 

 retention of the name in Loew's original sense seemed so convincincr 

 that I have felt constrained to examine exhaustively the whole contro- 

 versy afresh. 



The argument briefly is as follows. 



Loew in 1850 - proposed the name Toxorkina for a genus (only charac- 

 terised by its position in a table) of three fossil species which he named 

 but did not describe. In 185P he published a paper from which 

 generic characters could be drawn up as applying to one or more of 

 these three species, but gave no formal generic description alone. He 

 also added to the genus a living species, fragilis. 



Now Westwood in 1835 had set up Limnohiorhynchus * for hrasi- 

 liensis, sp. nov. (^ $ and canadensis, sp. nov. (^. In 1859, Osten Sacken 

 took what he thought to be canadensis in considerable numbers at Tren- 

 ton Falls, New York, and ascertaining it could not be congeneric with 

 brasiliensis, judging by the description of the latter, he set up a new 

 genus for it, ElejphantomyiaJ' 



Later on, Osten Sacken wrote a further paper on North American 

 Tipulidae ^ where he characterised Toxorkina, on Loew's living species 

 fragilis, adding two new ones from North America. Schiner objected^ 

 to the application of Toxorhina to fragilis, as he considered that Loew 

 intended it primarily for his three fossil species. Osten Sacken in his 

 Monograph of the North American Tipuhdae^ contests Schiner's objec- 

 tion at considerable length but rightfully enough states that the fossil 

 species and fragilis cannot be congeneric. He also considers Loew's 

 " generic description "^ to apply almost entirely ta fragilis, as the fossil 

 species possess a submarginal cell, which latter is absent in fragilis. 



By this time he had inspected the types {^^ $) of L. brasiliensis in 

 Westwood's own cabinet and found that they represented different 

 genera, the (^ being a Geranomyia, the $ belonging to what Osten Sacken 

 called Toxorhina, that is to say, the group comprising fragilis and which 

 is to-day without a name. 



The antennae in the three fossil species have fifteen joints, in fragilis 

 twelve only, Loew concluding therefore that in his living species, of v/hich 

 he had several specimens, the last three joints had been broken off. On 

 the strength of these two important characters Osten Sacken again 



1 Ann. Mag. Naf. Hist. (8) XI, p. 580 (1913). 



2 " Bernstein V. Bernstein fauna " in Prog. Konig. Bealschule zti Meseritz, p. 26 

 (Sept. 1850). 



3 Linn. Entom. V, p. 400 (1851). 



* Ann. Soc. Ent. France IV, p. 683 (1835). 



'" Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. p. 220 (1859). Incidentally there is no positive means 

 available to me of knowing whether this paper was actually published in 1859. It was 

 read at the August meeting of 1859, and may have been published then, or the whole 

 volume (which bears a printer's date of 1860) may have been published entire in 1860. 

 It does not affect any question of synonymy. 



^ Proc. Ent. See. Philad. p. 277 (1865). I have not been able to see this paper. 



' Beise d. Novara, p. 33 (1868). 



8 ilonog. Dipt. N. Amer. IV, in Smith. Misc. Coll. VIII, p. 112 (1869). 



' Referring presumably to the table of genera (1850) or the characters distributed 

 amongst the four species (1851). 



