iQii.] E. Brunetti : Oriental Tipulidae. 291 



apparently well-defined differences in the venation. These genera 

 may be characterized as follows: — 



Table of genera. 



Four posterior cells' (anal cell closed, 3rd longitu- 

 dinal vein present; discal cell present) . . Mongoma, Westw. 



{setisu sir ) 

 Three posterior cells.' 



Anal cell open; 3rd longitudinal vein either 

 absent, m consequence of the punctiform 

 contact of the 2nd longitudinal vein with the 

 discal cell (albitarsis) , or very short {pallida); 

 discal cell present . . Paramongoma, gen. nov. 



Anal cell closed; 3rd longitudinal vein present; 



discal cell absent .. Mongomioides, gen. nov. 



As fragillima, Westw., was the original type of Mongoma, 

 Westw., that species must, of course, remain the type of the res- 

 tricted Mongoma. Two other Oriental species belong here also, ienera, 

 Os. Sac, and pennipes, Os. Sac, the former from the Philippines 

 and India, the latter from Borneo, India and Ce5don. The 

 x\ustralian species australasiae, Skuse,, is a strict Mongoma, and a 

 new species from India will be described by me later. 



Of Paramongoma I designate albitarsis, Dol., the type; the two 

 North American species manca , Will,, pallida, Will., being I think 

 congeneric. 



Mongomioides is represented b}^ trentepohlii , Wied., as the type, 

 with exornata, Bergr., as an African species, to which I shall later 

 add three new species from India. 



These species comprise all the known ones previously referred 

 to Mongoma and they all conform with considerable exactitude to 

 one or other of the three forms of venation herein described. 



N.B. — Mr. Edwards resurrects Bigot's genus Trentcpohlia to 

 take the place of Mongoma, but this genus cannot stand, being 

 insufficiently characterized : in fact, its simple inclusion in a table 

 with such incongruous material as Dixa (a separate family), 

 Ptychoptera and Dolichopeza (the latter appearing a second time 

 as Apeilesis), both representing totally different subfamilies; 

 with such genera as Anisomera, Ula, Erioptera (as Octavia), each 

 belonging to a different section of Limnobiinae, and finall}^ with 

 "Zigonevra " {==Zygoneura,Mg., belonging to the M3'cetophilidae !), 

 is most certainly no characterization whatever. Moreover, the 

 nomination of a type species in itself does not constitute a gene- 

 ric diagnosis. 



1 As regards the names of the posterior cells it must be remembered that, 

 technically, as the anterior cross-vein is wanting, the first posterior cell is absent, 

 and that the uppermost of the posterior cells, whether four or only three be present, 

 is, strictly speaking, the second, and not the first. This view is confirmed by 

 Williston. 



