Vol. XXV] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 187 



reference to a new genus, of a number of species of Asphondylia be- 

 cause of the uniarticulate palpi. In the Porricondylariae we have an 

 analogous condition in the author erecting Winnertziola upon char- 

 acters which, in American forms, have proved inconsistent in their 

 association, and we consequently believe that this name must become 

 a synonym of Winnertzia. 



In connection with generic limitation we find, on referring to the 

 above tabulation, that nearly two-thirds, namely, 206, of the genera 

 listed are monotypic. This very large proportion is undoubtedly due in 

 part to the fact that a number of these genera represent forms from 

 countries where the fauna is comparatively unknown, such as Africa 

 and India. Greater familiarity with the gall midges in these regions 

 will undoubtedly show that some of these monotypic genera are rep- 

 resentatives of considerable series. Eliminating these from considera- 

 tion, we would raise a question on general principles as to the ad- 

 visability of adopting a classification which necessitates so many mono- 

 typic genera. Our familiarity with American forms indicates that 

 some of these later divisions must be relegated to synonomy. The 

 disposition of such genera in faunae with which we are unfamiliar can 

 be determined only by a careful study of the material. Excessive di- 

 vision can be easily remedied by consolidation later, and we must cer- 

 tainly credit the author with an honest endeavor to outline the facts 

 as they appear to him. In this connection we would simply voice 

 a sentiment in favor of proposing generic names, only so far as may 

 be necessary for the recognition of well marked groups, rather than 

 the establishment of new concepts simply to indicate minor varia- 

 tions. The many and varied forms of gall midges emphasize the 

 need of conservatism along these lines. 



The author, in some instances, specifies the generic type, while in 

 other cases the matter is ignored. We regret an apparent tendency 

 to reduce some of the older genera to synonymy by grouping spe- 

 cies under later names. This is a matter where the student must 

 use his judgment to a considerable extent. We have favored wher- 

 ever possible, the policy of validating and establishing the older 

 generic names, because such procedure tended to reduce the syno- 

 nyms now so burdensome in many groups. We find a curious con- 

 dition respecting Trottcria, a genus originally defined in 1892 by 

 Rubsaamen as Choristoneura. The only species mentioned at the 

 time was obtusa Lw. This genus being preoccupied, a new name was 

 proposed in 1897 by Kieflfer and three species mentioned, one of which 

 (not the one before the original author of the genus) is cited as type. 

 This we believe to be irregular and a procedure not warranted by the 

 International code. 



The author has made an attempt to define the subfamily, tribal and 



