Synonymic List of (he European 'J'ricliO[)tcrygi(lai. 447 



unknown to mc. From types received from Ilerr Reitter 

 T. cedipus \A identical witli a species which 1 formerly 

 described under tlic name of PtiUina ohccecatuni. I wouM at 

 that time have ^\ illin<^ly se})arated tliis species from PliUam^ 

 but could find no distinct generic difference, and did not con- 

 sider the rudimentary condition of its eyes to be of itself 

 sufficient. The next subgenus, Ptiliolum, commences with 

 P. ohlongunij a name long ago superseded by Spencei^ Allib., 

 and to this are added as synonyms Fop.rsteri and fascipemie ; 

 the latter of these is the type (received from Prof. Foerster) 

 from which I described P. Foersteri. Dr. Flach then makes 

 P. angufitatiim, Erichs., into a distinct species, although he 

 had just before quoted that name as a synonym of P. oblon- 

 gum^ and finishes Ptiliolum with two new species. The last 

 subgenus of this group is Euptilium, containing croaticuni, 

 caledonicum , and one new species. Then having inserted 

 the genus Actidium in the most unintelligible maimer among 

 the normal Ptilia^ Dr. Flach appropriates Motschulsky's 

 name OUgella for the purpose of forming a genus to receive 

 P. foveohUum alone. To this succeeds the absurd introduction 

 of Motschulsky's Micridium vittatum among some of the most 

 normal species of Ptilium. The shape and length of the 

 posterior legs is alone sufficient to separate Micridium by a 

 long interval from Ptilium, without entering at all into the 

 numerous anatomical differences which exist between those 

 two genera. But this is not all ; Dr. Flach has incorporated 

 with Micridium vittatum two almost normal species o? Ptilium, 

 P. Ilalidaii and P. angulicolle, which resemble Micridium in 

 the transparency of their elytra and in that alone. Then, 

 after the intercalation of Millidium, Dr. Flach proceeds to 

 enumerate the remaining Ptilia as species of his subgenus 

 Ptilium. 



I have now examined in detail the whole arrangement of 

 the Ptiliina ; to proceed in the same way through the Tricho- 

 pterygina would but entail the constant repetition of similar 

 remarks and prove wearisome to the reader. The same con- 

 fusion of synonymy pervades the whole list ; it is very con- 

 spicuous in Ptinella (Neuglenes), but seems to reach its 

 climax in Trichopteryx. 



I fully believe that Dr. Flach's new species are true and 

 genuine, the characteristic portraits of those which he has 

 figured speak for themselves; but, if I can judge by types of 

 some others received from Herr Reitter, the differences on 

 which they have been separated are far less distinguishing 

 than those which exist between many species unceremoniously 

 grouped together by Dr. Flach as mere synonyms ; and in 



