HETEROCLITyE. 



263 



The two following additional species of this Family have been 

 also recorded as British : 

 . 1. Psychodn tristis, Meig. Zw. vi. 272. 10 (1830). 



2. Psychoda humeralis, Hoffm. ; Meig. Zw. i. 166. 7 (1818). 



FAMILY IX. HETEROCLITJJ. 



HETEKOCLITS, Hal. I. B. D. i. 7 (1851). Tipularice Fungicola p., 

 Meig. Mycetophilinte p., Zett. 



Ocelli nulli. Antennae setacese, basi globoso-incrassata3. Mesothoracis 

 scutum integrum, absque sutura transversa. Ate oblongse, iricum- 

 bentes, apice rotuudatse, vena ambiente pubescente ; margo posticus 

 pilis fimbriatus ; vena costalis circum marginera posticum attenuata ; 

 vena3 apicales plusquam sex. Tibia? nisi apice nmticae. 

 Ocelli none. Scutum of the mesonotum undivided. Wings and 



halteres developed. Wings oblong, rounded at the tip, incumbent ; 



hind margin fringed with hairs ; costal vein attenuated round the hind 



margin ; veins in their last subdivisions more than six. 



" This group is not proposed as a Natural Family, and therefore 

 is not designated by a name conformable. Two genera of doubt- 

 ful affinity are temporarily associated in it, by the artificial charac- 

 ter above given, to avoid the multiplication of families, until their 

 true respective places are better demonstrated. The first of these 

 (Orphnephila) has indeed already been proposed by Ronclani,* 

 as the type of a distinct family, OrphnephiliruR, intercalated between 

 the Bibionina and Sciophili/ruB. Macquart, with confessed hesita- 

 tion, has placed the genus among the Fungicola (= Mycetophili- 

 d(R), Zetterstedt among his R/iyphii ; Haliday, the first describer,t 

 referred it to the group Culiciformes (== Culicidte Chironomi- 

 d(B), but expresses himself still unsatisfied as to its proper place, 

 after examination of the internal anatomy. The metamorphosis, 

 which would throw more light on the question, has not yet been 



* Nuov. Ann. Sc. Nat. Bologna, ser. 2. torn. vii. 



t Agassiz has given the dates, 1830 for Orphnephila, Hal., and 1832 for Thau- 

 malea, Ruthe ; but in fact Orphnephila was not published before the 1st of Septem- 

 ber, 1831, in the 19th number of the ' Zoological Journal '; while Ruthe's characters 

 of Thaumalea appeared in the number of the ' Isis ' for the November of the same year. 

 As Wagler had employed the latter name, almost contemporaneously, for a genus of 

 birds, the priority of the former is here recoguized. But as the names date from the 

 same year, and as Macquart at a later period casually chose the same trivial name as 

 Ruthe's teslacea, this has been retained in preference to the strictly prior name 

 devia. 



