Studies on Tipulidae II. 233 
27. Limnobia (Meig). Rond., type L. chorea M., is Dierano- 
myia 0. 8. 
II. Tipulina. 
1. Ceroctena Rond. = Dictenidia Brulle. 
2—3. Miphura Brulle, Otenophora Meig. 
4. Otenoceria Rond. is based on the mythical Piychoptera 
with pectinate antennae (P. pectinata Macq. Hist. Nat. Dipt. I, 
p. 77), an insect which neither Rondani nor anybody else has ever 
seen since it was first described, and which was perhaps a Ptycho- 
ptera with the head of a Ötenophora glued on. 
5—7. Ptychoptera, Pedicia (I) Nephrotoma. 
8. Alophroida Rond., type A. cinerea n. sp. indeser. must 
be some Tipula with an open discal cell. 
9—10. Tipula, Pachyrrhina. 
11. Pterelachisus Rond. is based on one of the female Ti- 
pulae with abortive wings and does not require the formation of a 
new genus, an opinion which Dr. Loew has expressed in the Wien. 
Entom. Mon. VIII, pag. 124 (1864), and with which I fully concur. 
Chionea is treated as a separate family, and placed at the end 
of the Tipulidae. 
I cannot but repeat that if Prof. Rondani had reached the Ti- 
pulidae, in the prosecution of his work on Italian diptera, he would 
have abandoned their distribution, as sketched by him in 1856; a 
distribution in which the fundamental subdivisions of the family are 
not grasped, and in which Dolichopeza and Dixa stand among the 
Limnobina, while Pedicia is placed with the Tipulina. 
Most of the genera, proposed in that sketch are merely indicated, 
not defined, because the designation of a type cannot pass for a de- 
definition, especially when that type is erroneously determined. That 
the author’s own conception of some of these genera was a confused 
one, is proved for instance by the genus Ilisia (No. 13), to which 
he added subsequently a second species, that belongs, not only to 
a different genus, but to an entirely different group. Schiner, in 
preparing his Fauna, and myself while working at my Monograph of 
1568, had Rondani’s Prodrome before us, and yet neither Schiner nor 
I could make anything of most of Rondani’s genera. It was the acci- 
dental discovery of some specimens named by Rondani which enabled 
me to interpret some of them; some of the others are a mystery still. 
Any claim of priority under such eircumstances is out of the question. 
