Studies on Tipulidae 11. 209 
Limnophila. 
Maeq. H.N. Dipt. I, p. 95, 1834; O. Sacken, Monogr. IV. p. 196-202; 
Tab. 2, f. 6, 7, 9, 10, wings; Tab. 4, f. 23-27 forceps. 
Limnomya Rondani, Prodr. ete. Vol. IV, Corrigenda; 1861 
(proposed for Limnophila, preoccupied in the Mollusca). 
About the genera carved out of Limnophila I still hold the 
opinion which I entertained in 1868, that it is more expedient to 
consider them as subgenera only, until they are better defined. 
These genera or subgenera are: Prionolabis O. S. (N. Am.); 
Dactylolabis ©. S. (Europe and N. Am.); Rhicnoptila Now., which 
is only a Dactylolabis with abortive wings!); Lasiomastix O. 8. 
(N. Am.); Dieranophragma 0. 8. (N. Am.), Idioptera Macq. 
(Europe and N. Am.); Ephelia Macq. (Synon. Elaeophila Rondani, 
Prodr. Vol. I, 1856, Europe and N. Am.), Poeeilostola Schiner 
(Europe). Since 1868 Zutonia v. d. Wulp. (Tijdschr. ete., XVII, 
147 and Dipt. Neerl. I, 411, Tab. 12, t. 16) introduced for the euro- 
pean L. barbipes, has been added to them. About the european 
species of Ephelia and Idioptera compare Loew, Beschr. Eur. 
Dipt. I, p. 10—16. « 
Poecilostola is not a well-formed genus; Mr. van der Wulp was 
richt in separating L. barbipes from it; it seems even doubtful 
whether /. punctipennis and punetata may be considered as belon- 
ging to the same natural group (I have alluded to this before, see 
Monogr. etc. IV, p. 200; remarks on the other subgenera will be 
found 1. e. p. 197—201). Loew described a J’oecilostola gentilis 
from Silesia, Beschr. Eur. Dipt. I, 5. He does not explain why he 
considers it a Poecilostola. 
Dicranophragma O. S., based merely on the presence of a 
supernumerary crossvein in the first submarginal cell, is not suffi- 
ciently defined. 
To the notices on the metamorphoses of Limnophilae already 
referred to in my Monogr. etc. IV, p. 201, may be added now the 
1) In comparing my statement on Rhicnoptila in Monogr. ete. 
IV, p. 199 at the top, with Nowicki’s description (Verh. Z. B. Ges. 
1867, p. 338) I discover in the former inaccuracies which make me 
believe that I drew that statement from the specimen sent to me by 
Schiner, without comparing the description. I say: „the discal cell is 
open‘; the description has: „the fourth vein encloses a discal cell, 
which is usually closed“ ete., „sometimes the discal cell remains 
open ete.‘‘ Isay: ‚there is a supernumerary crossvein in the first sub- 
marginal cell“; in the description this erossvein is said not to be of 
constant oceurrence, In general the venation is described as variable, 
