1920. | E. BRUNETTI: Oriental & S. Asiatic Nemocera. 187 
mirabilis de Meij., Tijd. v. Ent. LVIII, 104, fig. 1, wing (1915). 
Id., Nov. Guin. Res. XIII, 51 (1915). 
Papua. 
Sub-family TITPULIN-Z. 
Section CTENOPHORINI.! 
Xiphura, Brullé. 
Ann. Soc. Ent. Fran. I, 206 (1832). 
GENOTYPE, Tipula atrata \., the original 
species. 
indica Brun., Rec. Ind. Mus. XV, 257, pl. viii, 1, antenna (1918). 
Darjiling 6900 ft., I-vi-17. A perfect unique o@ in my own 
collection, taken by me. 
Ctenophora, Mg. 
Illig. Mag II, 263 (1803). 
Sch., F. Austr. II, 498: Ost. Sack., Berl. Ent. 
ZGitss Oe 164. Brin, Rec. Inds Musil, 
235: Fauna Brit. Ind., 288: Avxctt. 
GENOTYPE, Tipula flaveolata F., designated by 
Rondani, 1856.? 
any pera. Latr., Nouv. Dict: Hist: Nat. 426 
(1804). 

! For characters, v. Ost. Sack., Berl. Ent. Zeits., xxx, 164, e¢ seq: and 
Brun., Fauna, 287. 
2 A little investigation will, I think, show that Coquillett’s desire (1910) to 
restrict Ctenophora to atrata \.. and its allies, and to set up Phoroctenta for the 
remaining species of Ctenophora in a wide sense, is wrong. He accepts Latreille’s 
designation (1810) of atvata L. as type species of Ctenophora, which would have 
therefore left the bulk of the remaining species of the genus without a name, but 
there may be a flaw in his reasoning which will save the name of Meigen’s genus 
for the group of species so long associated with it. Meigen in 1803 (Illig. Mag.) 
set up Ctenophora for pectinicornis L., bimaculata L., atrata F., and flaveolata 
F. Two years later Latreille erected Tanyptera for atrata L. So far as can be 
judged at this length of time, the genus was not favourably received, all the 
species being still retained in Ctenophora. In 1810 Latreille apparently himself 
acquiesced in this view as he selected atrata as the type of Ctenophora. In 1832 
Brulle proposed Avphura with atrata as the sole species, and in 1833 Dictenidia 
with A. bimaculata L. as type and these genera were practically universally 
adopted. Rondani in his list of Italian genera (Prodrome 1856) accepted atrata 
as type species of Xzphura and selected flaveolata (one of Meigen’s four original 
species) as type of Ctenophora, and this view, so far as I am aware, was not 
challenged. By general consent for the last three quarters of a century, atvata has 
been regarded as not congeneric with the other species of the old Ctenxophora, and 
the only question to settle is in which genus it should be placed. Meigen selected 
no type species out of the four on which he founded Ctenophora; therefore 
Latreille in selecting atvata as type of his Tanyptera (1805) has undoubtedly prior 
claim to the species, as it was the sole exponent of his genus, and the fact that the 
dipterologists of his day apparently ignored the genus does not prevent it being 
resuscitated if originally legitimately founded. Therefore when Latreille himself, 
in 1810, acquiescing in the suppression of Tanyptera, selected atrata as the type 
species of Ctenophora, he went beyond his rights. Xzphura in 1832, also founded 
on atrata alone becomes an absolute synonym of Tanyptera. Rondani, recog- 
