173 
a clear figure of a complete wing is given. This shows some mani- 
fest inaccuracies, as in the origin of the fifth and sixth longitudinal 
veins, and a cross vein beyond the origin of the przefurca, uniting 
the first longitudinal vein and the costa and running across the 
auxiliary. A cross vein is also shown at about the middle of the 
second submarginal cell, which is probably misplaced. As there 
are plainly two submarginal cells, it is clearly not a Limnobia. If 
we interpret the cross vein beyond the origin of the przefurca as the 
subcostal cross vein (wrongly carried across to the costa), the 
parallel cross mark midway between it and the tip as the termina- 
tion of the auxiliary (wrongly connected with the first longitudinal 
vein), and carry the misplaced cross vein in the second submarginal 
cell to the bend in the first longitudinal vein just beyond the base of 
the first submarginal cell, where a marginal cross vein would 
naturally occur, we have the essential characteristics of the neura- 
tion of Trichocera, and these manifest inaccuracies aside there is no 
other genus with which it agreesso well. Moreover, Loew indicates 
two fossil species of this genus from amber (without describing or 
naming them), so that the occurrence of the genus in Europe at the 
period when this insect flourished is certain. 
Limnobia murchisont from Aix. Heer’s figure is plainly copied 
from that of Curtis, who figured but did not describe it (1829), but 
he describes from the original specimen, and compares it to the 
living Z. annulus Meig., with which the neuration is said to cor- 
respond. ‘The figure is good, but the auxiliary vein does not ap- 
pear. There is nothing to show that it is not a true Limnobia, 
though it is possibly a Dicranomyia. Probably an examination of 
the fossil would determine. Heer’s paper naming this species ap- 
peared in the same year (1856) as Giebel’s volume applying to it 
the name Limnobia curtist. As priority cannot be proved for 
either, it seems proper to prefer Heer’s name, since he evidently 
studied the specimen itself. 
In 1850, LoEw, in his Meseritzs Programm, gave the first im- 
portant communication on amber Diptera, mentioning a large num- 
ber of species (undescribed) under many new generic names; most 
of these are regarded by Osten Sacken, as appears by numerous 
references by him, to be identical with existing genera, and espe- 
cially with Limnophila, a genus which he considers as not yet 
properly subject to division into more than subgenera. ‘The genera 
given by Loew were in some cases named by him in a list appended 
