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



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

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

 misidentificatiou 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 barhicor nis m 1803? From the remarks 

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

 was the one which in 1804 he called C. communis. Tliis 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 descripiion, and, while rejecting 

 Ceratopogon altogethei-, 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 ambiguus, 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 

 Culicuides, with the type pidicaris, L. ; and from the table of 

 species which Meigen gives in 1830 (Syst. Beschr. vi. p. 266) 

 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 eiufach, wehrlos. 

 " (a) Mit nackten Fliigeln. 

 " (b) Mit haarigen Fliigeln {Culicoides, Latreille)." 



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

 important, — Kietfer's adoption of ambiguus as the tj'pe is 

 quite illegitimate if it can be discovered what Meigen meant 



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

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

 the Orthocladius group, but not of the Ceratopogouinae. This might be 

 adduced in support ot the view that Ceratopoyon should be used for 

 Orthocladiiis ; but I think it is evident that Meigen sini])ly made a 

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

 "Fliigel parallel flach aufliegeud." 



