] 50 [Berliner Entomolog. Zeitschr. Bd.XLII, Jahrg. 1897, Heft III u. IV.] 



Amalopis Halid. (O.S.) 

 versus Tricyphona Bergroth (not Zett.) 



C. R. Osten Sacken. 



More than once I have protested against the assertion that the 

 generic name Tricyphona Zett. has a right of priority over Ama- 

 lopis Halid. (0. S.). As this erroneous assumption is still prevailing 

 in certain quarters, I deem it necessary to return to the subject, 

 the more so, as I have a new argument to offer, which I hope, will 

 settle the matter. As Dr. Bergroth has, for about ten years past, 

 taken the principal interest in the question, it is against him that 

 my eritique will, this time, be directed. 



In my last publication on the subject (Berl. Ent. Z. 1887. p. 224) 

 I have Said: Tricyphona was established upon a character of an 

 altogÄher secondary importance, an open discal cell, which does 

 not occur in most species of the same relationship. It was Haliday 

 who pointed out one of the leading characters of this generic group 

 (Amalopis), and the generic name proposed by him niust prevail" 

 etc. Upon this Dr. Bergrotli in his article: „lieber einige N.-Am. 

 Tipuliden (Wien. Ent. Zeit. 1888, p. 198) contended that in Zetter- 

 stedt's second description of the genus (Dipt. Scand. X, p.4035, 1851) 

 „which is a page long, and appeared five years before Hali- 

 day's diagnosis, the venation is described in detail, and therefore 

 the absence of the discal cell is mentioned, although no parti- 

 cular importance is attached to this character. " 



Since my publication of 1887, I have come across a passage in 

 the Dipt. Scand. which had escaped my attention before, and 



