254 



C. R. Osten Sacken: 



2. Dicranomyia pubipennis O.S. and pilipennis Egger. 



I entirely agree with Verrall's opinion (1. c. p. 15s) that tbese 

 two naraes probably represent tlie same species. I canie to tlie same 

 conclusion when I cauglit specimens of pilipennis about Heidelberg, 

 several years ago. I have no American specimens at band, but my 

 description of the N.-A. pubipennis, Monogr. IV. p. 73, and the figure 

 of the wing, tab. I, fig. 2 agree exactly with the Heidelberg specimens. 

 One of them has the discal cell open, and confluent with the third 

 posterior cell, just as is often the case with pubipennis, and contrary 

 to the usual confhienee with the second cell, common among Di- 

 cranomyiae (Monogr. IV, p. 55 at top). The only difference I can 

 discover is that the stigma of pubipennis (at least in the tigure I 

 have given) is bounded by the curvature of the tip of the first vein; 

 in my specimens of pilipennis from Heidelberg the stigma reaches 

 a little beyond that curvature, which is less marked and more approxi- 

 mate to the adjoining crossvein. I am also very much inclined to 

 agree with Verrall's discovery that fusca M. is the earlier na nie 

 for this species, and it is remarkablc that the tigure of the wing in 

 Meigcn I, p. 133, Tab. 4, f. 19, in the rounding of the tip of the iirst 

 vein, and its exactly bounding the stigma, agrees better with the 

 tigure given by me in tlie Monographs, that with the specimens I 

 cauglit near Heidelberg. So far so good-, but Verrall has overlooked 

 that Meigcn VI, p. 274 has additional data about fusca, based upon 

 specimens taken in both sexes. Instead of 6 lines, it is said to bc 

 only 4 lines long; the h älteres are said to be „yellowish" und not 

 „albi, capitulo fusco" as in the first description; the abdomen is 

 described as „brown, with pale incisures. its end and the venter 

 reddish yellow"; „wings with a dark-brown stigma"; „thorax ochre- 

 yellow with three shining black stripes" etc. — These characters do 

 not agree with pilipennis Egg., and in some important points they 

 disagree with the short description of fusca M., Vol. I. I believe that 

 Meigen must have been mistaken in bis identification of bis fusca 

 Vol. VI, with tbat of Vol. I; and I also believe that fusca Vol. I is 

 the same as pilipennis Egg.; Meigen's tigure of the wing, Vol. I, 

 Tab. 4, f. 19, seems to me convincing. The best course to pursue, in 

 my opinion, is to accept Egger's name for the European species, 

 the identification of which is certain, and can be confirmed by existing 

 types, and to formulate the synonymy as follows: 

 Dicranoinyia pilipennis Egger. 



Limnobia pilipennis Egger, Verh. Z. B. Ges. 1863, p. 11U8. 



Limnobia fusca Meig. I, p. 133, Tab. 4, f. 19 (1818) [Verrall; 

 O.S.] (nee non L. fusca Meig. VI, p. 274. — [O.S.]). 



