1915] Bcrgroth — Some TipitUd Synonymy 55 



other authors that an explanation how he distinguishes them is 

 much to be desired. 



2. In the above mentioned paper in the Annals and Magazine of 

 Natural History (p. 580) I said that the palpi in Aporosa are 

 placed at the apex of the rostrum. Not having at hand the 

 scarce work of Webb and Berthelot, where Macquart first 

 described Aporosa, I relied on Enderlein's statement, but 

 Edwards, who has seen the work, has informed me that the palpi 

 are removed from the apex of the rostrum and that Enderlein 

 apparently had mistaken the "labellse" in Macquart's figure for 

 the palpi. Aporosa, therefore, is a synonym of Geranomyia Hal., 

 as stated by Osten-Sacken. 



3. Edwards (in letter) shares my opinion (1. c, p. 581) that 

 Liponeura Skuse (incorrectly written " Leiponeura") is a good 

 genus, but he has called my attention to the fact that the name is 

 preoccupied by Loew for another genus of Diptera Nematocera. 

 I, therefore, propose the name Lipophleps for it. Edwards does 

 not think that Lipophleps is allied to Atarba O. S., as he has satis- 

 fied himself that Atarba has spurred tibia?, a point of which 

 Osten-Sacken was uncertain. If we attach the same importance as 

 Osten-Sacken to the presence of tibial spurs, Atarba would be ex- 

 ceedingly difficult to locate systematically, for it can under no 

 circumstances be placed in the Cylindrotominse. Alexander has, 

 however, shown by several examples that this character has been 

 overrated, and it is known that the generic characters taken from 

 the tibial spurs in the order Trichoptera cannot be relied on. Al- 

 though Alexander (Psyche, 1913, p. 41) correctly states that "the 

 presence of a cell R2 is a tribal character, not generic as considered 

 by Becker," he has in all his papers taken the view that this charac- 

 ter is not even generic in the genus Gonomyia, and for this reason he 

 regards LipopJileps as a subgenus of Gonomyia. I have previously 

 given the reasons why I cannot agree with this point of view; still 

 less can I agree with Alexander's opinion that species with a fun- 

 damentally different structure of the male genitalia can be con- 

 generic. 



4. Edwards has informed me that the figure of the wing of his 

 Thaumasiopiera aldabrensis is incorrect in several respects, that 

 the venation in fact is the same as in the genus Ptilostena Bergr., 

 save that R3 is not turned upwards, and that the male propygium 



