320 



Records of the Indian Museum,. 

 CLADUROIDES, Biun. 



[Vol. XY, 



This will be synonymous with RhapJddolahis , Os. Sac. if the apparent 

 discrepancy in the number of joints in the antennae can be satisfac- 

 torily accounted for, otherwise it is a perfectly valid genus. ^ 



PARACLADURA, Brun. 



Alexander says this genus has no relationship with Cladura, Os. Sac, 

 but he does not say where he would place it ; presumably in the Ama- 

 lopini. 



Its characters are ; (1} no tibial spurs, the closest examination reveal- 

 ing no trace of them, (2) subcostal cross vein near middle of wing, some 

 distance after origin of praefurca, (3) eyes minutely but obviously pubes- 

 cent,^ (4) no frontal gibbosity but the face very distinctly gibbous, 

 (5) antennae with the scapal joints very short, sub-globular ; theflagellum 

 of 15 elongate joints, (6) five posterior cells, the 4th distinctly pointed at 

 base. 



The 17-jointed antennae makes the genus rather abnormal, wherever 

 placed. The absence of tibial spurs would relegate the genus to the 

 Eriopterini, but if exceptions to this character are admitted it must fall 

 either in the Amalopini or the Limnophilini. 



Paracladura agrees and disagrees respectively, with the various 



characters of the Eriopterini and Amalopini as shewn in the following 



table : — 



Eriopterini. Amalopini. 



Paracladura. 



Agrees in — 



1. No tibial spurs. 



2. No frontal bump. 



3. 5 posterior cells. 



4. Position of subcostal cross vein. 

 Disagrees in — 



1. Pubescent eyes. 



Agrees in — 



1. .5 posterior cells, especially in pointed 

 base of 4th. 



2. Pubescent eyes. 

 Disagrees in — 



1. No tibial spurs. 



2. No frontal bump. 



3. Position of subcostal cross vein.* 



As regards the Limnophilini, Paracladura has little or nothing in 

 common ; the absence of tibial spurs, the position of the subcostal 

 cross vein and the pubescent eyes all separate it. 



Apparently, therefore, although rather abnormal, it agrees best 

 with the characters of the Eriopterini, where it may remain for the 

 present. 



Section AMALOPINI. 

 TRICHOCERA, Mg. 



punctipennis, Brun., Fauna Brit. Ind., Dipt., p. 511, cJ ? (1912). 

 Simla. 



^ See note under Rhaphiddahis, p. 322. 



2 In my description this fact was not stated, the pubescence being overlooked ; close 

 examination is required to detect it. 



3 That is to say, according to Osten gacken's characterisation of the i-ection. If 

 TricJtocera be allowed to remain in the Amalopini, Parachiduni will not disagree in this 



character, 



