372 C. R. Osten Sacken: On Prof. Brauer s paper: 



Walker, List etc. III, 523, the scutellum is described as having only 

 two spines. Nevertlieless, on p. 30, Dr. B. calls Clitell. Amenides the 

 type of the genus Artemita and gives it South America for patria. 

 Now has C. Amenides two or four spines? And from what source did 

 Dr. B. derive the information about the locality of that species? 



Hermetia (p. 10, No. 36). The terminal lamel of the antennae 

 is described as ,,keulen- oder spindelförmig, flach, bandartig" (flat 

 ribbonshaped), in contrast to the antenna of Lagenosoma, which is 

 „dicht zweizeilig gefiedert" (with a deuse fringe of hairs on each side). 

 This description of the terminal portion of the antenna of Hermetia is 

 not correct; it looks like a flat, ribbonshaped lamel, but a closer 

 examination shows that it has the same structure as that of Lagenosoma; 

 a central, more or less broad rib, with a vane of closely packed hair- 

 like appendages on each side. This structure becomes especially 

 apparent when we hold the antenna between ourselves and the light, My 

 comparison of the antennae of Rosapha and Hermetia, quoted by Dr. B. 

 in another passage (p. 8), is based upon this structure; but in Rosapha 

 the feather is much less dense. 



Massicyta (p. 10, No. 35), „Bei Massicyta soll der Hinterleib 

 keulenförmig sein;" and on p. 25 ,,? Massicyta Wk., schlecht charac- 

 terisirt." — In making these statements Dr. B. does not quote, and 

 seems to have overlooked, the figure appended to M. Walker's des- 

 cription, which was drawn by Prof. Westwood and removes all doubt 

 about the shape of the abdomen of Massicyta, as well as about the 

 identity of that genus with Lagenosoma. 



Engonia, Thylacosoma and Lagenosoma are merely new 

 names for Negritomyia Bigot, Ruba Wk. and Massicyta Wk., as Dr. B. 

 himself acknowledges (p. 20, 21, 25). I do not think that the publication 

 of new generic names can be justified, when there is no doubt concerning 

 the old ones. In this instance Negritomyia has been sufficiently charac- 

 terized ; Ruba is so peculiar, that it would have been difficult, even 

 for a "Walker, to make it unrecoguizable. And if Dr. B. had any 

 doubts about Massicyta, it was, as I have shown above, not the fault 

 of Mr. Walker's. 



Drasteria n. gen. (p. 22); Compsosoma n. gen. (p. 23). 

 In Publishing the new genera, found among Dr. Schiner's posthumous 

 papers, Dr. B. should at least have verified whether the names are not 



