171 
as the description also shows. The markings are said to be the 
same as in the living Z. hortens’s of Europe. In all probability it 
is a true Tipula, and appears to fall nearest to Z. “mi or perhaps 
T. caroline from Florissant. 
Tipula emula. ‘The veins are differently shown for the same 
wing in Figs. 2 and 2°, the latter undoubtedly the more correct, but 
both wrong. As Heer says, it is closely allied to the preceding 
species; itis probably a true Tipula, and may fall near Z. hez/print 
from Florissant. 
Tipula,varia. ‘This species, according to Heer, belongs near the 
modern 7. hortensis and 7. hortulana of Europe. It appears to be 
a true Tipula, but the figures all vary in the neuration, with a nota- 
ble difference in those of the two specimens in the length of the 
petiole of the second posterior cell, if the enlarged figure, 3°, is cor- 
rect in this particular, as it undoubtedly is in the other points where 
it varies from Fig. 3°. It appears to come in the vicinity of 7. 
caroline. 
Tipula lineata. Here again the neuration of the enlarged figure, 
4°, differs, in the discal cell and elsewhere, from that of the figure 
of natural size, 4; the former is undoubtedly the more correct. It 
appears to be a true Tipula, and is said by Heer to stand next the 
European Z: odsoleta. To judge from the length of the preefurca, 
it would seem to come nearest to Z. ¢artari of any of the American 
tertiary species, but it is very different from it. Capellini credits 
this species to tertiary deposits at Gabbro, Italy. 
Tipula obtecta. Were, too, the two figures differ, though but 
slightly, an omission in the smaller being supplied in the larger. There 
is no reason to suppose it is not a true Tipula, and it is regarded 
by Heer as near his 7. varia from the same beds. It apparently be- 
longs with the series having a relatively short preefurca and seems to 
come nearest to our 7. suwbterjacens. 
Tipula ungeri. This is the species mentioned above as originally 
described by Unger under the name RAspidia major. Heer shows 
that it should be referred to Tipula, but there seems to have been 
no real occasion to change the specific name. Giebel held this 
view and described it as Zipula major. 
Rhipidia extincta. See above under the same species described 
by Unger. 
Rhipidia picta and R. propinguans. Loew’s criticisms apply 
equally well to these two species, which there is every reason to place 
