582 Mr. E. Bergroth on a new 



pygium. Osten-Sacken says that he described the forceps of 

 G. rnanca from a living specimen, and stated that it shows 

 the same type of structure as in the other species of Gono- 

 myia, although it is more simple. Had the stout inferior 

 median piece (Alexander's u ventral gonapophysis v ), so 

 characteristic of Liponeura, been present, Osten-Sacken 

 would certainly have mentioned it. Alexander says that the 

 forceps of L. pleuralis, Will., and L. amazona, Al., are 

 "fundamentally''' different; but his figures show that they 

 are built on the same plan, though the details are different. 

 From the figures of the forceps of L. incompleta, Brum, 

 and lamellaris, Speis., it is also evident that their structure 

 is very similar, with the same strongly developed ventral 

 gonapophysis. 



As Gonomyia antica, Brum, has a radial cross-vein and a 

 discal cell u coalescent with the second posterior cell," it 

 seems to be an Empeda ; but, if Sc is as short as in Gono- 

 myia, the species is a distinct connecting-link between these 

 two genera. 



10. Enderlein, in the above-quoted paper (pp. 60-62), has 

 evidently misunderstood the venation in the genera Mongoma 

 and Trentepohlia. The vein called by him R2+3 is R 2 , his 

 E, 4+5 is R 3 , his M x in Mongoma and Mi+ 2 in Trentepohlia are 

 R4+5, his M 2 in Mongoma is M1+2, and his M 3 in Trentepohlia 

 is M 1+2 + 3 . The radio-median cross-vein is lacking in these 

 genera. 



11. Needham (N.Y. State Mus. Bull. 124, p. 227) says 

 R 2 is atrophied in Lipsothrix, Loew, and figures it so. He 

 has been misled by a very faulty figure in Wahlgren's 

 paper (corrected in the separate copies). R 2 in this genus 

 runs through to the wing-margin, the part of it wanting in 

 the figures being parallel to R 3 . 



12. In 1911, Alexander described a North- American species 

 of Adelphomyta, Bergr., under the name A. minuta. The 

 wings of this species are glabrous ; but he seems to have placed 

 it in this genus chiefly on account of the venation, which is 

 said to be quite similar to that of A. senilis, Hal. Although 

 I, in my generic diagnosis, incidentally mentioned the pre- 

 sence of five posterior cells, this character is of no importance ; 

 and, although I included senilis in the genus, the type is 

 A. helvetica, Bergr., which differs somewhat in venation from 

 senilis. The genus was solely founded on the hairiness 

 of the wings : " characteres Limnophilce generis, sed super- 

 ficie alarum dense distinctius puberula et prseterea apicem 

 versus setis validiusculis obsita, his setis basi papillato- 

 incrassatis." I think A. minuta must be referred to Limno- 



