578 Mr. E. Bergroth on a new 



the narrow subrectangular last abdominal segment (9th 

 tergite), but seen from below the style is visible throughout 

 its length ; the underside shows two acuminate subtriangular 

 basal pieces, and on each side an elongate lobe which bears 

 no apical apophyses, but the inner part of which is grooved, 

 the hollow being filled with two basally confluent appendages, 

 the first (subbasal) of which is very slender, reaching the 

 apex of the median style and armed with a black tooth at the 

 apex ; the second appendage much longer and broader, but 

 not reaching the apex of the lobe, running out into a very 

 long and slender black tooth, emitting a much shorter black 

 tooth from its inner base ; seen from above only a part of 

 these teeth protrudes from under the interior margin of ihe 

 lobe, but almost the whole subbasal appendage is visible also 

 from above. Legs very slender, pale yellowish testaceous, 

 apex of tibise and last four tarsal joints fuscous. 



As the details of the propygium are tolerably well visible 

 also in dry specimens, I have given an outline of it with the 

 lateral lobes a little more outspread than they are in the 

 dry state and omitting the hairs. The female is unknown. 



Systematic and Synonymical Notes. 



1. In Ent. Tidskr. 1888, p. 170, I said that HoJorusia, 

 Loew, though forming a distinct group, cannot be separated 

 generically from Tipula. As, however, the pecularities of 

 the venation and the structure of the propygium (except 

 details) are common to all Holorusise, and as the antenna? are 

 not verticillate, I now think that it must be regarded as a 

 good genus. All exotic species of Tipula without verticillate 

 antennae must be removed from this genus. For H. rubi- 

 ginosa, Loew, 1 proposed the new name grandis, believing 

 that H. rubiginosa, Big., was of prior date; but they were 

 described the same year, and it is impossible to know which 

 of them has priority. As rubiginosa, Big., is a synonym of 

 H. albovittata, Macq. (incorrectly placed in Tipula by 

 Kertesz), there is no reason to reject the name rubiginosa, 

 Loew, and the name grandis is quite unnecessary. 



2. In his excellent 'Fauna of British India: DipteraNema- 

 tocera ' (one of the best works ever published on any group of 

 exotic LHptera), Brunetti has redescribed the genus Ctena- 

 croscelis, End., alleging that Enderlein " has mistaken the 

 tip of the 1st longitudinal vein for a continuation of the 

 small cross-vein connecting that vein with the costa." This 

 remark shows that Brunetti has paid very little attention to 

 Comstock's and Needham's studies on the homologies of the 



