580 J^ir. E. Bergroth on a new 



of the palpi in Tipulodina, for exceptions from the rule occur. 

 In Pedicia, for instance, tlie last palpal joint is quite as long 

 as in the Tipulidse longipalpi, Enderlein has taken the 

 adventitious cross-vein for the end of Sc and the real end of 

 Sc for a cross-vein ( = Sc2iu Needham's nomenclature); but 

 even if this interpretation were correct (which it certainly is 

 not) this " cross-vein " is in TipidoUna situated beliind the 

 base of Ks, whereas in the Pediciina it is placed much 

 before the sector. 



6. Edwards (Trans. Linn. Soc.,Zool. xv. p. 197) says that 

 Dicranomyia conjinis, Bergr., 1889 {consimilis, m., 1888), is 

 probably not distinct from D. tipulipes, Karsch, as the chief 

 distinguishing character given by me (viz., the length of the 

 small cross-vein) is variable. This character is indeed of 

 little importance, but the main distinguishing character given 

 by me was the position of Scg (the "subcostal cross-vein"), 

 which in eonfinis is placed close to the tip of Sc^ not con- 

 siderably removed from it as in tipulipes. As far as I can 

 find, this character is not subject to variations in the species 

 of Dicranomyia, but quite constant. 



7. Lihnotes thwaitesiana, Westw., the type of the genus, 

 described from Ceylon, is omitted in Brunetti's ' Fauna.' 



8. In describing his Geranomyia synaporosa, Speiser 

 (Deutsche ent. Z. 1 913, p. 135) says that the radial cross- 

 vein in this species is very weak and tends to disappear, and 

 that it is therefore impossible to sharply separate Geranomyia 

 and Aporosa. The real difference between these two genera 

 is, however, the position of the palpi, which, as correctly 

 pointed out by Enderlein, are placed at the apex of the 

 rostrum in Aporosa, far from the apex in Geranomyia. The 

 mouth-parts are also differently constructed in these two 

 genera. Elephantomym^ O.-S., is extremely closely allied to 

 Aporosa, Macq., though possibly distinct from it, but I 

 perfectly agree with Scudder's demonstration in his paper on 

 " Tertiary Tipulidse '^ that Elephantomyia is the same as 

 Toxorhina of Loew. This genus teas described, though 

 imperfectly, by Loew in 1850, and founded solely on three 

 fossil species of the genus, later called Elephantomyia by 

 Osten-Sacken. The fact that Loew, in 1851, wrongly placed 

 a living species in the same genus does not invalidate the 

 name To^vorhiiia as originally understood. The genus 

 Toxorhina, O.-S., nee Loew, would then be without a name ; 

 but I can see no inconvenience in using the name hivinobio- 

 rhy7ichus, WesUv., for this genus, although it is only partly 

 a synonym of it. 



