Synonymiea about Tipididae. 251 



In Schincr (1. c.) I). autumnalis Stäger is intruduced as a 

 synonym of D. modesta M., and Lhnnobia affinis Schuni. is added 

 as a synonym to D. stigmatica Meig. Now both of these syno- 

 nymies cannot be aeeepted. Schiner has evidently not read Stäger's 

 danish description of autumnalis attentively, although he quotes it; 

 he probably relied on its latin rendering by Zetter stedt (X, p. 3905). 

 Stäger (Dipt. Dan. p. 51, in Kroyer's Tidskr. III, 18-10) gives a 

 somewhat detailed aeconnt of the peculiar male forceps which makes 

 my identiheation of the species absolutely certain. Compare, for in- 

 stance the words: „the double obliquely-placed Prolongation ending 

 in a tuft of reddish hair", whieb is reproduced in my tigure, 1. c. 

 Tab. I, f. 5, 6. Unfortunaly for Seh in er this very passage is omitted 

 in Zetterstedt's latin version, perhaps for the reason that never 

 having seen a speeimen („Mihi non rite cognita", I.e.) he was afraid 

 to mislead the reader by a wrong translation of the somewhat difii- 

 cult passage. Such was, probably, the source of Schiner's error. 

 A swedish male speeimen is montioned 1. c. p. 3906, as a possible 

 variety; but its identiheation seems very doubtful, because if it was 

 a real male of Stäger's autumnalis, Zetterstedt certainly would 

 have noticed its peculiar forceps, and thus would have been enablcd 

 to render in good latin Stäger's passage about it. i) 



With D. stigmatica Meig. Schiner committed another error in 

 adopting its synonymy with affinis Schum. He probably had only 

 female speeimens of the species, because otherwise he would have 

 paid more attention to the words of M ei gen (VI, 279) „After des 

 Männchens dick, kolbig", would have mentioned this strueture in his 

 description, and, at the same time, would have noticed the absence 

 of any mention of that kind in Schummers description (p. 127) of 

 his affinis, a difference which renders the assumption of a synonymy 

 impossible. Schummel was a very careful describer; he had both 



i) Since writing the above I have discovered two other passages in 

 Zetterstedt, XIV, p. 6536 and 6538 (1860), which may also have 

 misled Schiner: Glochina autumnalis Stäg. „Tantum pro varietate 

 lAmn. modestae Schum. a libero fiarone Osten Sacken habetur," Stett. 

 Ent. Z. 1854, p. 207, 211. Zetterstedt misunderstood my meaning. 

 I spoke merely of some of the varieties of modesta, enumerated by 

 Schummel, which might possibly have been speeimens of autumnalis. 

 The volume having appeared in 1860, Schiner must have reeeived it 

 during his work on the Fauna. This is another proof of the fact that 

 Zetterstedt did not know autumnalis by sight. Verrall's assertion 

 in the E. M. Mag. XXIII, p. 158 (1886) that „D. modesta is certainly 

 not the species so called by O.S. Stett. Z. 1854", is dne to a similar 

 mistake, as Verrall acknowledgcd to nie in litt. 



