1918.] E. Brunetti: Oriental Tijmlidae. 303 



Fragilis. therefore, cannot be congeneric with the other species and 

 Loew must have not only overlooked the presence of the submarginal 

 cell in his fossil species but must have necessarily been under the impres- 

 sion that it was absent, from his observation that his genus was " re- 

 markable ... for the abnormal venation of its wings." Such an 

 observation would quite apply to a fly in which he thought the sub- 

 marginal cell was absent because such an instance was certainly remark- 

 able, whereas at least one submarginal cell or two such cells are normally 

 present in the great majority of Tipulidae. There is no other abnor- 

 mality in the venation of T. fragilis, and it could only have been by some 

 unaccountable oversight that Loew regarded his fossil species as pos- 

 sessing similar venation. Loew's own figure of fragilis clearly indicates 

 that no submarginal cell is present in at least that species. It micrht, 

 of course, be contended by those disposed to argue that even the draw- 

 ings were incorrect, and the submarginal cell introduced inadvertently, 

 in which case fragilis and the fossil species might venationally be c( n- 

 generic, but the difference in both number and structure of the antenna] 

 joints in the two groups again effectually separates them generically. 



It being thus obvious that fragilis could not be congeneric with the 

 three fossil species, Osten Sacken adopted Toocorhina for the former, 

 and relegated the latter to Elephantomyia, Os. Sac. with the species of 

 which they possess other agreements than that of the venation only. 



Their principal character in common is that of the antennae, which 

 are 1.5-jointed in the living species of Elephantomyia and also in Loew's 

 fossil species, bearing verticils on all the joints. In fragilis and the 

 two new North American species that Osten Sacken included under his 

 Toxorhina the antennae are 12-jointed only, and bear verticils on the 

 last two joints only. 



It may be as well to mention here an apparent discrepancy with 

 regard to the palpal joints. Loew said that the last joint of the palpus 

 was " not so long as, or scarcely longer than those which precede, taken 

 together," and Scudder adopted that author's statement. Now, apart 

 from whether the words " those which precede " mean only the two 

 preceding joints or aU the preceding joints (4), the last joint in all the 

 three fossil species is figured as considerably shorter than even the pre 

 ceding joint only.^ There is evidently some oversight here that escaped 

 Scudder, whilst Osten Sacken does not comment in his Monograph on 

 the respective length of the joints, and liis description of these organs 

 when setting up his Elephantomyia shews they are therein very close to 

 Loew's figures of his fossil species. 



In conclusion, the argument adduced by Osten Sacken in favour of 

 reserving Toxorhina for fragilis and its living North American allies 

 does not appear sound, and if he hesitated to " differ from the eminent 

 dipterologist," (Loew), I would also have experienced still more diffi- 

 dence in disagreeing with Baron Osten Sacken were it not for Prof. 

 Bergroth's recent concise statement of the case. 



Toxorhina, in the present interpretation of the genus, is not oriental, 

 and is confined to Loew's three fossil species unless it is proved that 



^ In Loew's figures of the palpi of liis three fossil species two possess five joints aiid 

 the third four joints only. 



