128 Mr. F. W. Edwards on the Use of 



inclusion of the species in Ceratopogon-, and (3) that many 

 writers, with whom I emphatically agree, would in cases of 

 misidentification take the species which an author actually 

 had, not that which he imagined he had, as the type of a 

 genus. 



The question is, therefore, what species had Meigen before 

 him under the name barbicornis in 1803 ? From the remarks 

 quoted above, I think there can be practically no doubt that it 

 was the one which in 1804 he called C. communis. This was 

 doubtless the reason why Coquillet in 1910 indicated com- 

 munis as the type-species, a course in which I consider he 

 was perfectly right. 



Kieffer, in the paper cited, maintains that the species which 

 Meigen had in 1803 cannot be recognized, and argues from 

 this that the real validity of the genus Ceratopogon can only 

 date from Meigen's fuller work, where other species are 

 included and a fuller diagnosis given. He quotes Meigen's 

 work of 1818 (omitting that of 1804), where the hairy wings 

 are referred to in the generic description, and, while rejecting 

 Ceratopogon altogether, uses Forcipomyia in place of it for 

 one of the hairy-winged groups, taking for type F. ambiguus, 

 Mg. In more recent papers (Ann. Mus. Nat. Hung. 1917) 

 he has reverted to the use of Ceratopogon for this same group, 

 still with the type a?nbiguus, Mg. 



I maintain that this course is unjustifiable for two reasons 

 — firstly, although Meigen, in his 1804 diagnosis, mentions 

 the hairy wings *, Latreille, in 1805, proposed the g nus 

 Culicoides, with the type pulicaris, L. ; and from the table of 

 species which Meigen gives in 1830 (Syst. Beschr. vi. p. 2(56) 

 it is clear that he accepts Culicoides as a restriction, including 

 in it all the species with hairy wings (although he does not 

 actually admit its generic value), thus: — 



" A. Alle Schenkel einfach, wehrlos. 

 " (a) Mit nackten Fliigeln. 

 " (6) Mit haarigen Fliigeln (Culicoides, Latreille)." 



In the second place — and this is, perhaps, even more 

 important, — Kieffer's adoption of ambiguus as the type is 

 quite illegitimate if it can be discovered what Meigen meant 



* Meigen also states in this diagnosis " Die Fliigel parallel-dack- 

 formig" (i: e. held in roof-like position in rest), which is a character of 

 the Orthocladiiis group, but not of the Ceratopogoninse. This might be 

 adduced in support of the view that Ceratopogon should be used for 

 Orthocladius ; but I think it is evident that Meigen simply made a 

 mistake on this point. He corrects the statement in lSlH to read 

 " Fliigel parallel flach aufliegend." 



