Genus of Tl^nViddd from Turkestan, 583 



phila, and there are other species of Limnophila similar to 

 minuta in variation and, at least among the European species, 

 almost quite as small. Later, Alexander has not laid much 

 stress on the venation, including in Adelphomyia two new 

 species with quite different venation, but with a distinct 

 pilosity in the apical part of the wing; these species can, 

 1 think, be left in Adelphomyia. If this genus is made to 

 comprehend both species with hniry and with glabrous wings 

 and with quite different venation, I fail to see by wiiat 

 diameters it could be separated from LimnophVa. 



13. In his monograph of the Tipulidge found in Baltic 

 amber, Meunier has described a Lijmiophila rohusta. As 

 this name was given one year before by Wahlgren to a 

 species from Sweden, I propose for Meunier's species the 

 name L. palcea. 



14. Of Diazosma hirtipenne, Siebke, one of the rarest of 

 the European Tipuliilse, the late G. Czwalina sent me a 

 specimen from near Danzig, East Prussia. It was originally 

 described as a Trichocera, but belongs to a distinct genus 

 called Diazoma by Wallengren. As this name is preoccupied 

 (Lamarck, Mollusca, 1816), I propose to replace it by 

 Diozosma, which has the same signification. (The name 

 Trichopiera, used by Sfrobl for this genus, is also pre- 

 occupied.) The North-American Trichocera trichoptera, 

 O.-S., is likely to prove a Diazosma. 



15. In his 'Fauna' (p. 515) Brunetti says: ''a corre- 

 spondence carried on between Osten-Sacken and Bergroth as 

 to the question of priority and suitobility between Amalopis, 

 Hal,, and Tricyphona, Zett., resulted in the former name 

 being permanently retained." Far from being permanently 

 retained, the name Amalopis has been rejected by Coquillett, 

 8trobl, Wahlgren, Lundstrom, and other dipterists who have 

 written more or less extensively on Tipulidse, and the claim 

 of Tricyphona to priority is self-evident. Even if Zetter- 

 stedt's first description (1838) is insufficient, we must 

 remember that his second description, publisiied five years 

 before that of Haliday, is quite correct and very detailed, 

 filling one page; he consequently also mentions the open 

 discal cell, but lays no particular stress on this character, 

 which was also mentioned by Haliday. The other reason 

 why Osten-Sacken rejected Tricyphona — that its definition 

 is applicable to one species only — is still more untenable, for 

 we cannot proceed to rename every genus founded on a single 

 species as soon as more species of it are found ; the characters 

 must in such cases be modified, but the name retained. 

 Osten-Sacken united Orimargula, Mik., with Aniocha,0.-S. 



