52 Records of the Indian Museum. [Vol. X, 



Isostomyia,^ Coq. 



Lepidosia, Coq. Science xxiii, 314 (1906). 



Tinoletes Coq. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash, vii, 185 (1906). 



The sub-family Corethrinae. 



There is nothing to be criticized in this group the few admit- 

 ted genera being well founded, Corethra,^ Mg. , Chaoborus, Lichten- 

 stein [Sayomia Coq.), and Kamcia,^ Annandale. 



The question of the synonymy of the first two genera was 

 fully discussed by me recently.* 



Mr. W. S. Dallas, F.L.S., has given ^ a translation of a paper 

 by Prof. Meinert on CoretJira, in which the latter accepted plumi- 

 cornis, F., as the type species simply because it figured as such in 

 popular manuals. 



Prof. Meinert, however, added, " Strictly speaking, the generic 

 name Corcthra should be retained for Tipula culiciformis, DeGeer, 

 and when other species such as C. plumicornis and pallida were 

 afterwards proved to belong to a different genus from the first named 

 species a new generic name ought to have been selected for them." 

 He, however, refrained from making the transposition, and con- 

 cluded, " If such a change is eventually to be made, it had better 

 remain over for some future monographer of the group." 



The conclusions reached substantiate the synonymy as worked 

 out by me, though at the time I had no knowledge of Meinert's 

 paper. 



Some controversy has of late years arisen by the mosquito 

 workers desiring to exclude the Corethrinae from the Culicidae, on 

 the absence of a biting mouth and scales, or because they do not 

 appear to have an}' economic value, perhaps. This cannot be 

 done. The two groups have been accepted without dispute in a 

 single family for a century by dipterologists, who, when all is said 

 and done, must remain the ultimate judges of systematic questions. 



In spite of attempts to prove the contrary, the most recent 

 researches have proved the biological affinity of the two groups, 

 Alcock asserting this most emphatically , and the new genus Ram- 

 cia, set up by Dr. Annandale,^ though decidel}^ more corethrine 

 than culicine, is distinctly intermediate in nature. 



Dr. Adolf Eysell in his paper " Sind die Culiciden eine 

 Familie " ' desires to separate the corethrines and would also 

 form a separate family of the anophelines, but both suggestions 

 are dipterologically incorrect. 



1 I caa find no reference to the description of this genus. 



2 I have shown Mochlonyx, Lw. to be synonymous with Corcthra. (Rec. 

 Ind. Mus. IV, 317). 



S Edwards has adopted the term Chaoborinae for this subfamily, but the 

 antiquity of Corethrinae must preserve it from alteration. 

 -* Rec. Ind. Mus. iv, 317 and vi, 227 



* Ana Mag. Nat. His. (5) xii, 3-4 (1883). « Rec Ind. IMus. iv, 505. 



T Archiv. tur Schiffs. uud Tropeu Hygiene ix, "51-55 Ci9'35)- 



