188 Records of the Indian Museum. [VoOL. XVI 
xanthomelana Walk., List. Dipt. Brit. Mus. I, 77, 2 (1848). 
Ost. Sack., Berl. Ent. Zeits. XXX, 166: Wulp. Tijd. v. Ent. 
XXVIII 81. Bron; Rec) Endy Mus. Vi,-235. 240 ebauna 
Brit. Ind., 289. East India. Tvpe in British Museum, 
This species is retained under Clenophora but the o is not 
known and it probably belongs to Pselliophora. C. melanura, 
Walk. (List Dipt. Brit. Mus. I, 78; 1848) is a Sargus (Stratio- 
myidae). Alexander now suggests that xanthomelana is prob- 
ably identical with Prionota nigriceps, Wulp. If so, of course 
Walker’s name takes precedence. 
Pselliophora, Ost. Sack. 
Berl. Ent. Zeits. XXX, 165 (1886). 
de Meij., Tijd. v. Ent. LIV, 63, tab. Javan 
spp.: Brun., Rec. Ind. Mus. VE, 236. tab. orient. 
spp. and notes: zd., Fauna Brit. Ind., 290. 
GENOTYPE, Tipula laeta F., by my own desig- 
nation (Fauna, 290). 
laeta Fab., Ent. Syst. IV, 239 (Tipula) (1792). 
Ctenophora laeta, 1d., Syst. Antl., 19: Wied., Dipt. Exot. I, 20 
(Ctenophora): id., Auss. Zweifl. I, 38': Macq., Dipt. Exot. 
1 1, 42, ply i, ee (full ins.)): Brun. eer Indma ins Ve 2aor 
notes: XV, 257: %4d., Pauna Brit: Ind, zon, -o Oy, ple wie: 
antenna (Pselliophora). 
Widely distributed in India and the East; Dehra Dun, 
Purneah, Sind, Calcutta, Bangalore, Travancore, Bombay, Goa, 
Nilgiri Hills, Ceylon. A variable species. 
Type presumably in Fabricius’s collection. 
var. trilineata Brun., Rec. Ind. Mus. VI, 240 (1911). 
Id. Fauna Brit. Inds 202, pl. v, 2,.witls. var 
Unique type of this variety in Indian Museum. 
ardens Wied., Dipt. Exot. I, 20, 2 (Ctenophora) (1821). 
Id., Auss. Zweifl. I, 39, 2 (Ctenophora). 
Pselliophora, id., de Meij., Tijd. v. Ent. LIV, 61: Brun., Rec. 
Ind. Mus. VI, 238 (o@ noted): Alex., Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 
XLIX, 179, pl. xiv, 31, wing. 
Batavia and environs, x [Jacobson]; Lombok; Sumatra; 
Buitenzorg, i1i-o9 [Bryant and Palmer]. 
Type (a 2) in Wiedemann’s collection: the @ was apparently 
first described by me from a specimen in the Vienna Museum. 

nizing atrata as not congeneric with the other species of Ctenophora, retained 
Xiphura with atrata as type, and in selecting flaveolata F. as type of Ctenophora 
was entirely within his rights, and the latter species must be accepted as genotype 
of the genus in its generally accepted sense. As regards Tanyptera versus 
Xiphura, on the grounds of continuity before priority I retain the latter as it has been 
recognized for nearly ninety years. Ctenophora is alrnost certainly not oriental, but 
it is as well to keep the name in the lists until the discovery of the g of Walker's 
xanthomelana decides this question. 
! Some authors erroneously report a figure of this species by Wiedemann. 
