56 Records of the Indian Museum. [\'ol. IV, 



CorcthrincB ) but in mjv compilator}* work, the Anophelincs and 

 JEdeomyincE were accorded sub-famil^^ rank, merely in deference 

 to specialists (as was distinctly stated in my reph' to ^lessrs. D3'er 

 and Knab's criticism of my Oriental Catalogue, Can. Ent., xli, 121). 



These groups were presumably differentiated as follows : 

 AnophelincE , palpi long in cf and 2 ; Culicince, palpi long in & short 

 in 9 ; .Edeomyincs, palpi short in cf and 9 ; CorcthrincB, proboscis 

 short and not formed for biting, which separates this sub-famih^ 

 from the other three. 



No doubt the genera of intermediate nature efface the dividing 

 lines between these sub-families, which only supports the plea that 

 no true .separation exists except between the CulicincB and Corcth- 

 rincB. Miss ^Mitchell echoes writers on mosquitoes onl}^, in asking 

 ' ' why should the Corcthrid-T be placed in Culicidce," and in referring 

 to both groups as " heterogeneous elements." 



Replying to this it may be remarked that Corethra, to the 

 systematic diptcrologist^ has always been in Culicidce, where, I main- 

 tain, it must most certainlj- still remain, as in its natural affinity. 

 To compare it with Simulium is c[uite wrong, the two genera having 

 nothing in common. Most of the workers in mosquitoes forget that 

 venation is one of the soundest characters in classification, and that 

 Corethra has a venation identical with Culex. 



The absence in the former genus of the stiff proboscis formed 

 for piercing, characteristic of the Culicince, does not necessitate 

 the elimination of the genus from Culicidse. 



Stomoxys and its allies have a stiff piercing proboscis, yet they 

 have been admitted till recently merel}' as a group of genera in the 

 sub-family MuscincB . In Girschner's rearrangement of groups in 

 Muscidse s. lato the MuscincB sub-family is suppressed but Stomoxys, 

 etc., are none the less afforded generic rank only, and incidentally 

 it may be noted that with this new sequence of genera in ^Muscidse I 

 cannot possibly agree. Drymcia has also a stiff proboscis, 3'et 

 is merel}^ an exceptionally^ structured genus of Anthomyidae. 



Other genera in other families could also be cited. 



The methods of depositing the eggs, the anatomy of the 

 stomach, the minor characters of the larvae, and in fact, all the 

 features emphasized by Miss Mitchell, would be regarded b}^ sys- 

 tematic dipterologists as subservient to, for instance, venation, and 

 any bodily structure in the adult of a much higher nature than the 

 variation of organs known to be subject to the greatest differen- 

 tiations. 



To borrow again from Williston's article, " The three or four 

 new families that have been proposed in recent years, all of them 

 with more distinctive characters than the Corethrinc€ possess, have 

 been unanimously rejected by dipterologists.' ' 



Besides, many of the points urged by Miss Mitchell are flatly 

 denied shortly afterwards by ^Ir. F. Knab, in the same Journal 

 (Can. Ent., xxxix, 349). 



Mr. Knab's reply to Miss Mitchell's article calls for little 

 comment here as it mainlv consists of refutations or doubts of 



