\ 
174 
to the introduction to Berendt’s folio work on the amber fauna 
(1845), but one, Adetus, mentioned then by him does not appear 
later, and was evidently dropped by Loew; whether it was re- 
garded as not separable from Tipula, next to which it stands in the 
list, or as equivalent to one of the numerous genera of Limnobinz 
afterwards proposed, does not appear. These genera were not fully 
described by Loew in his AZeseritz Programm, but merely separated 
from one another in a table prepared to show their relationships. 
They were as follows, the new ones prefixed by an asterisk ; none of 
the species were named. 
Tipula. Of this genus he names three species and records thir- 
teen others. 
Rhamphidia. Two species named and two others recorded. 
* Toxorhina. Three species are named. The following year 
(Linn. ent., v) they were partially described, especially the palpi 
which were also figured, and the genus described, but the characters 
of the genus were almost entirely based on a living species from the 
West Indies, which it has since been shown should be generically 
dissociated from them. Osten Sacken has since retained the name 
Toxorhina for the West Indian species, and referred the fossils 
at first to the existing genus Limnobiorhynchus, and (when it was 
found that this was based on incongruous material, the sexes of 
different genera already known) to the genus Elephantomyia, which 
also contains living representatives. Osten Sacken objects to 
Schiner’s contention that the name Toxorhina should be pri- 
marily restricted to the fossil species, and mainly on the ground 
that though when first proposed only amber species were included 
in it, it was not characterized until the following year, and then on 
structures drawn from a living insect, which in part did not exist in 
the fossil. Iregret to differ at all from Baron Osten Sacken—the 
foremost student of the group of Diptera—but it cannot be fairly 
claimed that Toxorhina was not characterized when first proposed, 
for not only does his mention of the genus include the statement 
that it has an extraordinarily long filiform rostrum, and exceptionally 
short four-jointed palpi, but the table on the preceding page, wherein 
the genera are differentiated (a table to which Osten Sacken appears 
to have paid no attention), practically defines the genus thus: Ros- 
trum slender, longer than head and prothorax together. Palpi 
short, the last joint not so long as or scarcely longer than those 
which precede, taken together. This, though not all that could be 
