200 Mr. F. W. Edwards on 



The species varies considerably in size, the smallest female 

 measuring only 2'5 mm., and the largest male 6 mm. in 

 body-length. The species may be readily distinguished 

 by the very long and dense hair on the posterior legs and 

 on the front tarsi of the male, and by tlie short, pale, 

 and almost horizontal cross-vein. Zetterstedi's description 

 of C. coracinus (from Central Sweden) applies in all respects 

 to our insect, though the determination is not adopted with 

 confidence, since in Kieft'er's redescription of C. {Lauter- 

 bornia) curacina from Germany he states that small pulvilli 

 are present, whereas in the Bear Island insect there is cer- 

 tainly no trace of pulvilli. There can be hardly a doubt 

 that this is the species described by Holmgren as C. polaris, 

 in spite of the fact (mentioned above) that he states that 

 the cross-vein is infuscated. Kirby's original description of 

 C. polaris is quite indeterminate, and the type is lost, but 

 the British Museum possesses the remnants of one of the 

 females on which Curtis founded his redescription and figure ; 

 this specimen is not a Laitterbornia but a C/ii)'ono77iys, related 

 to, though quite distinct from, C. Iiigtibris. Kieffer's Pro- 

 chironomiis koenigi must surely be L. coracbia, though he 

 states that the cross-vein is "schrag," and does not mention 

 the front tarsi, nor the few fine hairs at the extreme tip of 

 the wing, nor the ventral brush-like appendage of the male 

 liypopygium characterizing the Tanytarsus group, to which 

 Lauterbornia belongs. 



Camptocladius, v. d. Wulp. 



1 agree with Goetghebucr in including within this genus 

 the species with small pulvilli (C stercorarms ^ and some 

 others); those with shortly hairy eyes (C. alerrimus, Mg., 

 and its allies — i.e., Kieffer's genus Phcenocladius) ; and those 

 with microscopically setose wings, the sette 2-4 yu. in length 

 {C. minimus, Mg., and its allies — i. e., part at least of Kieff'er's 

 genus Chatocladius and Thienemann's genus Di/scampto- 

 cladius). Thienemann has shown that there are marked 

 larval and pupal differences between these groups, but after 

 studying about 30 British species I doubt if they can be 

 maintained as distinct genera, owing to the occurrence of 

 intergradient adult forms. It is, indeed, very difficult to 

 draw a sharp line between CamptocJadias and some other 

 of the Orihocladiariffi, especially Dadylocladius. The genus 

 Camjjtocladius will, however, conveuieutly include all the 



• Syn. Cfi{rono7)wssferrora)-ius,T)e'^eer,necsiuct.; C.br/sshms, Schrank; 

 Ptectrodadins foliaceus, Kieff. 



