On the Use of the Generic Name Ceratopogon. 127 



XVI. — On the Use of the Generic Name Ceratopogon, Meigen 

 (Diptera, Chironomidse). By F. W. Edwards. 



(Published by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.) 



Since the old genus Ceratopogon was broken up by Kieffer 

 in 1901 much uncertainty has existed as to which group the 

 old name should be applied to, different authors using the 

 name in different senses. It is highly desirable to arrive at 

 definite and permanent conclusions on this point, and the 

 following note has been penned with this object in view. 



The main facts, which are not in question, are these : — 



The genus Ceratopogon was founded by Meigen in Illiger's 

 ' Magazine ' for 1803, a short diagnosis being given, and 

 " Tipula barbicornis, Fab.," being the only species mentioned 

 as belonging to the genus. The earlier name Tlelea was 

 published in 1800 without any species being mentioned, and 

 is now rejected by nearly all dipterists on this ground, 

 together with the other names proposed in the '•' Nouvelle 

 Classification." In his " Klassifikazion" Meigen introduces 

 a number of new species, but " barbicornis, Fab.," is placed 

 among other species of which Meigen had not seen specimens 

 as belonging either to Coreihra, Chironomus, Tanypus, or 

 Ceralop>ogon. He also remarks (p. 35) : " Aus dieser 

 Beschreibung [of Fabricius] folgt, dass dieser Art unter 

 Ceratopogon gehoret. Ob aber (xmelin (oder vielmehr 

 Linne'e) unci iSchrank diese oder den oben beschriebenen 

 C. communis unter ihrer Tipula barbicornis verstanden haben, 

 mag icli nicht entscheiden." Later, Meigen (Syst. Beschr. 

 vi. p. 261) notes under barbicornis that " das Exemplar in 

 Fabricius' Sammlung ist ein Chironomus, Chir. obscarus." 



Now, since on its first introduction only a single species 

 was mentioned as belonging to the genus, it is clear that, if 

 the rules of zoological nomenclature are to be strictly followed, 

 this must be regarded as the type-species. Accordingly, 

 Kieffer has argued (Zool. Anz. xxx. p. 516) that T. barbi- 

 cornis is the type, and that, since Meigen has informed us 

 that Fabricius's specimen was onl}' Cluronomus obscurus, Mg. 

 (which is supposed to bean Orthocladius), Ceratopogon should 

 be used in place of Orthocladius. 



But against this view it should be remembered (1) that 

 Fabricius was not the author of the name barbicornis, and that 

 what Linnaeus meant by this name is unknown ; (2) that 

 Meigen, as he himself informs us, had not seen examples of 

 barbicornis, but was relying on Fabricius's diagnosis for his 



