152 C. R. Osten Sacken: 



distvibnted anionp; six different Sections ofTipulidae. From his 

 poiiit of view Zetterstedt was right. 



I liavc Said enougli to show tlie fallacy of Dr. Bergroth's first 

 proposition that Zetterstedt „attached no particular iniportance" to 

 tlie absence of the discal cell. New I shall attempt to prove tlie 

 inanity of his other thesis: that Zetterstedt's deflnition of the genus 

 Tricyphonn contains the necessary data for its claiming priority 

 against Amalopis Hai. (O.S.). 



While preparing the first editioii of niy work on Tip. brevi- 

 palpi (Proe. Ac. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1859, p. 245)1 discovered an im- 

 portant character in the venation, overlooked before, which led me 

 to introduce the Seetion Amalopina (at that time I called it Podi- 

 ciaeformes). Besides this essential character, this Seetion was 

 distinguished by several other, subsidiary characters, not existent in the 

 ninjority of the Tip. brevipalpi. These were: a distinct tubercle 

 behind the antennae; pubescent eyes, peculiarities in the venation, a 

 peculiar structure of the male forceps etc. As appeared afterwards, 

 this new Seetion was to einbrace half a dozen genera, forming a very 

 distinct natural group ofTipulidae. In attempting to select a name 

 for this Seetion I canie across a notice by Haliday, inserted in a 

 very out of the way place in Walkcr's Ins. Brit. Diptera III, 

 Addenda p. XV). Haliday says: The latter {L,imn. occulta M.) is 

 the type of the genns Amnlopis^ distinguished from the other groups 

 that have been separated from L/lmnobia not only by the characters 

 of the venation, specified in the table, but also by the hairy eyes 

 and by the frontal tubercle, which seems to foreshadow the ap- 

 pearance of ocelli in that region, towards which the subsidiary nerves 

 run in the Tipulidae, although those organs are as yet undevelo- 

 ped." Now this notice made me aware that Haliday was on the 

 right track for the recognition of the Seetion Am alopi na, although 

 he had overlooked the principal character, the position of the sub- 

 costal crossvein, and had even adduced a wrong one, the absence of 

 the discal cell. (His reference to the table, as reproduced above. 

 refers to p. XYI, of the same Addenda, where d^ Limnobia^= 

 Amalopis Hai. is characterized as having no discal cell). Now 

 as Haliday had named Limn. occulta M. the type of his genus 

 Amalopis, and at the same time had assigned to it, as distinctive 

 character, the absence of a discal cell, and had overlooked the 

 principal character, the position of the subcostal crossvein, I would 

 have had a perfect right to set aside his wrongly defined new genus, 

 and to introduce a new name, for the genus as well as for the 



