230 Records of the Indian Museum. [VoL. XVII, 
incertus Brun., Fauna Brit. Ind., 422 @ ; pl. viii, 9 wing; xi, 12, 
@ genitalia ( Toxorhina) (1912).! 
Id. Rec. Ind. Mus. XV, 208. 
Kurseong, 27-vi-1o [Annandale]. Unique type in Indian 
Museum. The genus Toxorhina does not now appear to be 
oriental.” 
Ceratocheilus, Wesché. 
Jour. Linn. Soc. XXX, 358 (1910). 
GENOTYPE, C. winn-sampsoni, sp. nov., loc. cié., 
the Ist species, by present designation. 
Neostyringomyia, Alex., Canad. Ent. XLIV, 85 (as 
subgenus of Styrvingomyta) (1912). 
GENOTYPE, Sityringomyta cornigera Speis., by 
original designation. 
Conithorax, Brun., Rec. Ind. Mus. XV, 298 (1918). 
GENOTYPE, C. latifrons, sp. nov., loc. cit. 
I have to thank Mr. Chas. Alexander for the above synonymy 
(2m litt.). Ceratocheilus at its inception was considered by 
Wesché to represent a new subfamily having affinities with the 
Ptychopterinae. The exact position of Styringomyia is also 
uncertain. Some authors refer it to the Rhamphidiini, others 
to the Eriopterini. 
latifrons Brun., Joc. cit. 299, 2 , fig. 2, antenna, 3, wing (Conithorax) 
(1918). 
Bidai, Selangor-Pahang Frontier, Federated Malay States, 
iv-17 [C. Boden Kloss}. Unique type in Indian Museum. 
brevifrons, 7d., loc. cit., 300, @ (Conithorax) (1918). 
Above Tura, Garo Hills, 3500—3900, viii-17 [Kemp]. 
Unique ¢ype in Indian Museum. 
Elephantomyia, Ost. Sack. 
Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci, Philad. 220 °(18590): 
Ost. Sack., Monog. Dipt. N. Amer. IV, 106, 
pl. 1,5, wing, iii, 8, forceps: id., Berl. Ent. Zeits. 
CONT ies: Brun Rec. Aud.) Mus, Vi oz, 
Elephantomyia group. 
GENOTYPE, E. westwoodi Ost. Sack. (as Limno- 
biorhynchus canadensis, Westw.), by original 
designation. 

! In the note after the description of this species the first sentence is mis- 
leading. In the description itself it is stated that the discal cell is open in one 
wing and closed in the other in the unique type, In penning the phrase com- 
mencing ‘though the discal cell is open, etc. (Fauna, p. 423), | must have over- 
looked this anomaly and observed only the left wing, in which the cell is open; 
and, although this explanation makes the text intelligible, it admittedly does not 
excuse a want of care in examination. My figure shews the cell closed as it 
normally is in this genus and as is stated both in my generic description (I.c. p. 
421), and in Loew’s. 
2 See Rec. Ind. Mus. XV, 300, for discussion. 
