Synonymica aboitt Tipulidae. 257 



Cuvier. The change of an inappropriate name immediately after its 

 pnblication does not cause any inconvenience whatever. 



4. There is a discrepancy in Linne's description in the „Fauna 

 Suecica", which does not seera to have been noticed before; the 

 diagnosis has: „femora annulo albo", the description: „femoribus 

 ante apicem annulo nigro", which is correct. InVillers's reprint 

 of the description (1. c.) the same contradiction is maintained. Is it 

 merely a slip of the pen, or does the „annulo albo" refer to the paler 

 space of the feraur proximad of the dark ring? At any rate, when 

 the diagnosis alone is reproduced, as it is in the X th and XII th edit. 

 of Linne, and in all the refercnces of Fabricius, it is most mis- 

 leading, and nobody would recognize annulata in it. 



5. Anothcr eonfusion may be prevented by taking notice of 

 Haliday's renmrk in the Stett. Zeit. 1851, p. 135, line 11 from top, 

 that Linne had used the name annulata for a second time in his 

 edit. XII, No. 28, but that this was a misprint for annotata, thus 

 corrected by Linne in his ovvn copy, existing in the Linnaean Society. 

 This correction, excepting by Haliday, has never been published. 

 Zetterstedt has nothing abuut it. 



4. Erioptera trivialis Meig. 



In my paper in the Stett. Ent. Zeit, 1854, p. 209 I established 

 the synonymy of Limnobia ciliaris Schuin. with E. trivialis M., an 

 identitication which was corroborated by a specimen labelled in Mei- 

 gen's handwriting in the Museum of S. Petersburg. But I pereeive 

 now, that in the same place I coiumitted a mistakc in taking the 

 speeimens of trivialis with a closed discal cell for E. cinerascens 

 Meig. When I said (1. c): „Beide Beschreibungen sind unter sich 

 vollkommen übereinstimmend", I did not discriminate between: „Grau 

 mit brauner Rückenlinie" (on the thorax) in the diagnosis of tri- 

 vialis, and „Hinterleib bräunlich mit dunkler Rückenlinie" in that of 

 cinerascens. About the thorax of the latter, Meigen says: „hell- 

 grau", without mentioning any dark stripe. About the antennae he 

 says: „second Joint remarkably stout" and gives a tigure (Tab. 4, f. G) 

 which reproduces a development of this Joint that certainly does not 

 belong to trivialis. At that time I was confirmed in my error by 

 the Statements of Zetterstedt X, o775. who, in his description of 

 cinerascens Meig., apparently repeating Meigeifs expressions says: 

 „articulo seeundo praesertim grosso"; he also does not mention the 

 dark thoracic stripe, and, these discrepancies notwithstanding, winds 

 up with : „Valde similis E. triviali et praeter arcolam disco'idalem 



XXXIX. Heft n. 17 



