50 Records of the Indian Mnscuni. [Vol.. X, 



Generic notes in Sabethini. 



Dinomimetes, Knab. The very long 2nd antennal joint 

 " 14 times as long as wide " conspicuously separates this from 

 all other genera in the famJly except Deinocerites, a genus of Culi- 

 cini. The eyes are said by Theobald to be contiguous, and this is 

 made a generic character but Edwards points out that this is no 

 uncommon feature both in Culicini and Sabethini. 



Trichoprosopon, Theob. A sufficiently distinct genus by 

 the metanotal adornment coupled with palpal characters. 



Johlotia, Blanch., is an absolute synon^^m , erected as a nom. 

 nov. under the mistaken assumption that Theobald's name was 

 preoccupied by Trichopyosopus, Macq., in Diptera. 



Lutz would employ Johlotia as a separate genus, for Trichopro- 

 sopon lunata, Theob , characterized by the clypeus not being hair^^ 



Lestiocanipa , Dyar and Knab. Firstly this is inadmissible, 

 being founded on larval characters only. Theobald says that in 

 the adult it differs from Runchomyia only in the absence of the 

 conical frons, but he refers some of the species to Trichoprosopon, 

 with which it ma}^ be considered synonymous. 



Eretmapodites, Theob. This author claims generic rank for 

 this on the thin hairless & palpi, the ungues, and the greater 

 length of the two last antennal joints (presumably in both sexes), 

 but it is admitted here as valid on the metanotal ' and palpal 

 characters given in the table. 



Some species, at least in the cf ,have paddle-like scales on the 

 legs, in this respect resembling Sabethes. These species, in the 

 cf cf are recognizable by the thin palpi, but I know of no method 

 of distinguishing the $ $ with certainty. 



Hyloconops, lyUtz. Theobald professes to differentiate this 

 genus from Trichoprosopon by the " swollen apex of the proboscis 

 and the shorter cf palpi," but the latter is said to have the pro- 

 boscis with " rather expanded apex." The plumose instead of 

 pilose cf antennae, assuming no doubt on the matter, is a better 

 distinction. As regards the 9 Hyloconops, insufficient mformation 

 is accorded to be able to identify it with certaint3^ 



Chaetomyia, Leices. (renamed Leicesteriomyia, Brun.), must, on 

 account of its metanotum bearing scales and chaetae, be removed 

 from the Culicini to this section. In ni}' table of genera it comes 

 with Hyloconops, from which insufficient information as to the 

 latter genus precludes my separating it. It may possibly be 

 synonymous, 



Runchomyia, Theob, (Binotia, Blanch.). The frontal pro- 

 minence in this genus sufficiently distinguishes it. The proboscis 



bald ; on the other hand it seems quite possible to be synonymous with Wyeomyia 

 {v. generic notes, post). 



1 New.stead describing a new species from the Congo says no metanotal scales 

 or chaetae are present. They may have been rubbed off, or perhaps the species 

 is placed wrongly here. 



