Amalopis Ual. (O.S.) versvs Tricvphona Bergr. (notZett.). 151 



wliich proves. beyond any contention, that my original assertion, 

 (compare above): „Tricyphona was established upon a character of 

 an altogether secondary importance, an open discal cell," was correct; 

 that Zetterstedt hadno other reason for establishing that genus, than the 

 absence of that cell; and that, if that cell had been present, it would 

 never have occurred to him to introduce that genus. — In the passage 

 I am roferring to (Dipt. Scand. I, Preface, p. VIII; 1842) Zetter- 

 stedt explains the general plan of bis work, which was, to introduce 

 a System avowedly artificial, in which species but little related 

 to each other are sometimes placed in the same genus („interdum 

 species minus propinquas in idem congesserim genus"), and. on the 

 contrary, forms sufficiently allied are excluded from a genus („e con- 

 trario hinc inde e genere removerim formas ut videntur satis approxi- 

 matas"). As an exaniple of the latter category he quotes, among 

 other instances. Tricyphona, which he removed from Limnohia 

 [„Tricyphona a Limnohia separavi"). 



The reason why Zetterstedt „separated" Tricyphona from the 

 other Limnohiae becomes piain, when we turn to the Dispositio 

 Syn optica, Family Tipuli dae. There (Dipt. Sc. vol. I, p. 94, 

 line 2) we find: „Subdiv. I: Areola alarum minuta adest un Eri- 

 optera saepius deest)", to which corresponds, on p. 98, line 1, Sub- 

 div. II: „Areola alarum minuta deest etc." This second subdivision 

 contains Tipulidae without discal cell, longipalpi and bre- 

 vipalpi promiscuously: Ptychoptera, Dicranoia, Tricyphona. 

 Anisomera, Dolichopeza. Pachynei<ra, which is among the number, 

 is a Bibionid, which Zetterstedt took for a Tipulid. 



Will Dr. Bergroth, after that, maintain his assertion that Zetter- 

 stedt „attached no particular importance to this character?" My 

 excuse for not discovering the passage in Zetterstedt's Preface earlier 

 is that, having spent most of my life in studying American Diptera, 

 and never having given a particular attention to European ones, I 

 have never made a thorough study of Zetterstedt's work, although 

 I have consulted it whenever necessary. But that Dr. Bergroth, a 

 Finländer, vvho should have known Zetterstedt by heart, has, as it 

 seems, never taken the trouble to read his Preface, indispensable as 

 it is for the uiiderstanding of his method, appears to rae. to use the 

 mildest expression, singular. If, before preparing my Monograph 

 of the Tip. brevipalpi, I had read that Preface, I would never 

 have pointed out, as a reproach to Zetterstedt (Mon. N. A. Dipt. IV, 

 p. 21, 1869), that one of his nltimate subdivisions of the genus im- 

 nobiw contains fourteen species which, in my Classification, are 



