914 0. R. Osten Sacken: 
pulis”). The study of specimens of Cerozodia has now rendered my 
error apparent, and hence the whole paragraph on Otedonia published 
by me in my Studies on Tipulidae, Part I, Berl, Ent. Zeit. 1886, 
p. 178—180) must be cancelled. 
The general habit of the body, the spurred tibiae, the rostrum 
without nasus, the structure of the antennae with their long, pu- 
bescent, single branches on each joint, and the venation prove the 
close relationship between the specimens of Cerozodia and Otedonia, 
which I had an opportunity to study. The differences which I per- 
ceive consist: 1% In the number of antennal joints; the Francfort 
specimen of Ötedonia has, as far as I can see 22 joints; two for 
the scapus; two joints with a long branch each, inserted on the 
underside; ten branches inserted on the upper and inner side; eight 
joints without branches. The Bigot specimen described by me (l. c.) 
has the same structure of the antennae. Philippi counts 22 joints in 
Ct. flavipennis and pictipennis of which he describes the females 
only; his Oft. bicolor & hat 24 joints; his Ct. bipunctata & only 
15 joints. He agrees with me in counting only two basal joints of 
the flagellum with a branch inserted on the underside. In Cerozodia 
there are three such joints, and the whole antenna counts more 
joints (from 32 to 39), more branches, and less branch -less terminal 
joints (compare Cerozodia). 
2°. In the venation: the Francfort speeimen of Ctedonia, com- 
pared with my Cerozodia plumosa, has the discal cell much larger, 
the proximal end of the first posterior much broader, and therefore 
the anterior cerossvein longer; the first submarginal cell has the same 
attenuate proximal end, but little distant from the end of the second 
submarginal; the second posterior cell has the same long petiole, 
The course of the auxiliary vein I cannot see, the wing being so- 
mewhat crumpled, but judge from my own statement about Bigot’s 
specimen of Ct. flavipennis (l. e.) that it is the same as in Cerozodia, 
that is that it ends in the first vein, and has no distinet subcostal 
erossvein alongside of it. The Bigot specimen has a stump at the 
root of the praefurca, which is wanting in the Franefort specimen. 
Altogether, the differences in the venation between Otedonia and 
Cerozodia seem to be unimportant. It remains to be seen whether 
the auxiliary vein of ©. bicolor Phil, is correctly represented in his 
Tab. 23, f. 2; it runs into the costa and differs in this from the same 
vein in Of. flavipennis. Although the described specimen of ©. bi- 
color is a male, it has remarkably short branches of the antennae, 
compared to those of ©. flavipennis &; it may therefore belong to 
a different genus. 
