170 
are Zipula antiqua, T. protogee, and ZT. curvicornis. They are 
wholly irrecognizable from the descriptions, but their size (from one 
to two German lines in length) plainly shows that they are at least 
not Tipulinz, and probably not even Tipulide. They must be left 
wholly out of consideration, both on this account and because it is 
believed that Presl’s specimens were really preserved in the recent 
gum copal and not in amber. 
UNGER in 1841 (Verh. leop.-carol. Akad. Naturf., xix) described 
and figured the following species from Radoboj, afterwards reex- 
amined by Heer. 
Rhipidia extincta. ‘The figures given by Unger and Heer do not 
entirely agree in the neuration of the wings; Unger’s is the better 
and clearer. The head is lost, so that the antennal structure cannot 
be determined, and Loew has pointed out (Zedtschr. ges. Naturw., 
XXXl1, 190) the failures of the neuration, and believes Heer to have 
been misled in his determination by Meigen’s inaccurate figure of 
the neuration of the modern Rhipidia maculata. Loew regards it 
as probably a true Limnobia. 
Rhipidia major. ‘The specimen has the tip of the wing broken, 
and with it are lost the parts necessary to decide to which of the 
subfamilies of Tipulidz it should be referred. But as the wing 
must have had a length of about 22 mm., it is evident that it must 
belong to one of the Tipulinge, and therefore it should be referred 
to Tipula in a large sense. Heer has already so referred it under 
the name 7Zipulda ungeri, and Giebel has followed him in generic 
reference. On account of its abdominal markings, however, Heer 
compared it to the species of Tipula now placed in Pachyrhina. 
HEER, in 1849, in his classical work on the fossil insects of 
Oeningen and Radoboj, makes the first important addition to the 
then known fossil Tipulidz. His species are all mentioned below, 
and all of them stated to be from Radoboj, excepting Limnobia 
formosa, for which no locality is mentioned ; it is probable that this 
was a mere oversight, and that it also comes from the same place. 
None of Heer’s figures, it should be said, can be depended upon for 
the exact neuration, as some are manifestly incorrect, and in no 
case do different figures of the same wing (with different enlarge- 
ments) agree. It is therefore impossible, even with the aid of the 
text, to place them confidently. 
Tipula maculipennis. The neuration shown in Fig. 1° differs 
from that in Fig. 1, the latter being undoubtedly the more correct, 
