258 



C. R. Osten Sachen : 



parum discrepat." What E. cinerascens of M ei gen is, I do not 

 pretend to deeide, but it is evident that the name trivialis, based 

 lipon a recognizable description, and the comparison of an original type 

 of the author, is prcferable to the other. My error was reproduced 

 by Schiner, van der Wulp, Yerrall and lately by Bergroth, i) 



All these authors also addnee Limnobia sericea Macq., Dipt. 

 du Nord, I, p. 1Ö3 (1824) as a synonym of trivialis. In following 

 up this synonymy I finally reached its source in Schurninel (p. 152), 

 but with the addition of vielleicht, which is omitted by his suc- 

 cessors. Macquart's description contains enough to show that this 

 synonymy is correct, but there is a passagc in it, which requires an 

 explanation. Macquart says: nervures comme dans l'espece pre- 

 cedente, which is his Nu. 33 Limnobia ocellaris with references to 

 Meigen, and to Tipula ocellaris Linne. Now both these references are 

 wrong, because Macquart's L. ocellaris is no other than Erioptera 

 (Acyphona) maculata Meig. Macquart (1. c. ) distributes his Limno- 

 hiae in those with five posterior cells (p. «9, No. 1 — 12) and those 

 with only four pusterior cells (p. 94, No. 13—38). His L. ocellaris 

 No. 33, and L. sericea (No. 34) are among the JAmnobiae with four 

 posterior cells, and for this reason Macquart could say about the 

 latter „nervures commc dans respeee preeedente". Tipula ocellaris 

 Lin. has five posterior cells, in tlic seiisc either Schrank or Curtis 

 (as Epiphragma pieta), or of Meigen, Schiner and otiiers (as 

 Poecilostola, punctata). Without this explanation, the synonymy of 

 sericea Macq. with trivialis Meig. would remain doubtful, and this 

 doubt may have induced Schummers vielleicht. At present this 

 synonymy may be considered as certain. Ahout Tipula ocellaris Lin. 

 a Singular confusion has prevailed in the dipterological literature 

 which will form the subjeet of the next paragraph. 



About the position of E. trivialis in the System 1 said in my 

 Studies II, p. 195 that it had some aftinity with „Trimicra and 

 Psiloconopa, in its general habit, and the character of its venation". 

 Verrall was also quite right in noticing its resemblance to Symplecta 

 (E. M. M. XXIII, p. 209). It agrecs with it in the position of the great 

 crossvein which is often, although not always, inserted a little proxi- 

 mad of the discal cell, and also in the slight sinuosity of the seventh 

 longitudinal vein. It agrees especially with 5. punetipennis in having 

 the posterior branch of the fourth vein forked, and not the anterior, 

 as it is found in Symplecta similis and stictica, a difference which 



i) In consequenee of this new Interpretation of cinerascens, what 

 I said about it in my Studies etc. II, p. 195 at top, nuist be modified. 



