Studies on Tipulidae. 177 



distinct nasus, and the country of origiii, whicli is Brazil, while 

 the original Ptilogyna is from Australia. That the submarginal 

 cell is not in coutact witli tlie discal and that the second posterior 

 is petiolate, are characters of a secondary importauce, which may 

 vary in closely allied species. The male alone was described by Loew; 

 it remains to be seen whether the female agrees with that of P. ra- 

 micornis. 



3. Ptilogyna simpleos Walk, Ins. Saund. Dipt, p. 446 (South- 

 America) -is an Ozodicera. 



If on one band the generic position of Ptilogyna. par and P. 

 flagellifera is doubtful on account of the presence of a nasus and 

 for other reasons, on the other, there are some australian flabelli- 

 ferous Tipulidae without nasus, whose relationship to Ptilogyna 

 is likewise uncertain. 



Professor Westwood described an Ozodicera longipedalis from 

 Australia (Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1876, p. 502, Tab. 3, f. 4; also 

 1881, p. 381). In my manuscript notes, I find about it: „rostrum 

 without distinct nasus, and formed as in Ptil. ramicornis." The 

 expression in the description: naso elongato evidently refers to the 

 rostrum. Now Ozodicerae, like true Tipulae, have a distinct nasus; 

 moreover the eight species hitherto described are South -American, 

 and not Australian. The position of O. longipedalis in that genus 

 tberefore is doubtfoul; it may be nearer allied to Ptilogyna. The 

 sex of the specimen described- by Westwood is not indicated; the 

 antennae are like those of a female Ptilogyna; only .there are 15, 

 instead of 14 joints; the end of the abdomen. as represented oh the 

 figure, seems to be broken off; it is probably a female. Pedicia 

 gracilis Walk. List etc. I, p. 37 (sine patria) which I identified with 

 O. longipedalis is likewise represented by a female specimen in the 

 Brit. Mus. The submarginal cell is not in contact with the discal, 

 (it is in P. ratnieornis); but this, as I have already said above, 

 is not a character of great importance. 



Macquart, D. E. I, 1, p. 42, Tab. 2, f. 2 introduced a new genus 

 Ctenogyna for C. bicolor Q. , from an unkuown country, probably 

 Australia. He comparesit to Ptilogyna, but says that it differs in 

 the venation and the presence of spurs on the tibiae. Now, I have 

 shown above that Macquart was mistaken when he wrote that the 

 tibiae of Ptilogyna are spurless. The difference in the venation, if 

 it merely consists in the contact of submarginal cell with the discal " 

 in Ptilogyna, would not constitute a sufficient distinctive character.. 

 The rostrum of Ctenogyna, if we can rely on Macquart's figure of 

 the head, has no nasus; the antennae seem to be like those of a female 



XXX. Heft II. 12 • • 



