584 On a new Genus of Tipulidge from Turkestan. 



I agree with Mik that they are generically distinct, but if 

 their synonymy is admitted as correct, and the nomenclatorial 

 principles vindicated by Osten-iSacken, Aldrich, and Brunetti 

 are upheld, we must reject the name Antocha, for this genus 

 was founded on a single species and was principally based on 

 the presence of a discal cell, the indistinct Sc 1? and the square 

 anal angle of the wing — three characters not present in the 

 other species, A. (0.) alpigena, Mik. In the same manner 

 as with Tricyphona, Brunetti deals with the genus Grapitula, 

 Gimm. Although this genus was well described and figured 

 by Gimmerthal, and although Brunetti admits that its type 

 and only species is identical with the type and only species 

 of Pleciomyia, Brun., he rejects the name Cropitula and puts 

 his own name Pleciomyia instead of it. This procedure is 

 not rendered more just by citing, as Brunetti does, Grapitula 

 as a synonym of Plecia, where it, of course, does not belong. 

 I am unable to find in Brunetti's book other reasons for such 

 deviations from generally accepted rules than the words he 

 quotes from Osten-Sacken : " the almost absolute rules of 

 priority recognized for specific names are not equally applic- 

 able to the generic ones.''' Osten-Sacken's well-known 

 arbitrariness in nomenclatorial matters is not, however, 

 consistent with the principles of nomenclature adopted by 

 the zoological congresses of late years. On the other hand, 

 it must be noticed with satisfaction that Brunetti has rejected 

 the names in Meigen's pamphlet of 1800. Meigen did not 

 state in his paper that he accepted the binominal nomenclature, 

 and there is nothing in the paper indicating that he did so. 

 Admittedly generic names in works of this class cannot be 

 taken into consideration. 



16. In the only specimen on which the genus Amalopina, 

 Brun., was founded there is a supernumerary cross-vein in 

 the cell B 3 ; but this character is apparently accidental or at 

 most specific. Yet Amalopina may be a good genus, as it 

 does not show the most striking peculiarity of Tricyphona, 

 viz., the unusual position of the radio-median cross-vein 

 before the base of cell K 3 . To Amalopina also appertain the 

 North- American Tricyphona exoloma, Doane, and T. dia- 

 phana, Doane. The undetermined species of " Amalopis'" 

 figured by Needham in his above-quoted work (pi. 25, fig. 3) 

 may possibly also belong here, but, as the radial sector is very 

 short and strongly divergent from R l5 it is more probable 

 that it is a Plectromyia or a Rhaphidolabis. 



