TOXORRHINA. 113 



In 1865 (Proc. Philad. Ent. Soc. 1865, p. 22T) I published 

 two North American Toxorrhinse, and gave a detailed descrip- 

 tion of the generic character. 



The genus Limnobiorhynchus "Westw. (Annales de la Soc. 

 Entom. de France, 1835, p. 683 ; the description has been repro- 



nally intended. He says : " If Loew introduced this genus for several 

 amber Diptera, which are provided with a submarginal cell, the circum- 

 stance that he afterwards added to it a species from Porto Rico, which has 

 no such cell, does not prove that the absence of this cell is a character- 

 istic mark of the genus, etc." It seems to me that the question, to which 

 of the two genera does the name Toxorrhina rightfully belong? to T. 

 fragilis and congeners or to the three fossil species ? must be answered by 

 another very natural question, to which of the two does Mr. Loew's de- 

 scription of Toxorrhina apply ? Toxorrhina has been merely named and 

 not described in the pamphlet Bernstein unci Bernsteinfauna, 1850 ; it has 

 been described in the following year only, in the Linnaia. This description 

 applies to T. fragilis only, and not to the three fossil species. The circum- 

 stance that these fossil species are provided with a submarginal cell, the 

 circumstance upon which Dr. Schiner's argument rests, has up to this day 

 never been mentioned by Mr. Loew in print ; on the contrary, he saj-s 

 expressly that these species are absolutely similar to T. fragilis, with regard 

 to their generic characters (Mr. Loew's expressions have been quoted above, 

 p. 107) ; in other words, destitute of a submarginal cell. As late as in 

 1861, in a lecture held before the meeting of the German naturalists in 

 Konigsberg (JJeber die Dipternfauna des Bernsteins), Mr. Loew says: 

 "Among the amber Diptera I also found three species of a Tipulideous 

 genus, which I called Toxorrhina ; it is remarkable .... for the abnormal 

 venation of its icings. Afterwards I became acquainted with a living 

 representative of the same genus," etc. Can it be affirmed, after this, 

 that Mr. Loew introduced the genus Toxorrhina for certain species pro- 

 vided with a submarginal cell? He could not have very thoroughly 

 examined the amber species, as he overlooked the presence of that cell ; 

 T. fragilis, on the contrary, he described and figured correctly. There 

 can be no doubt, I think, that the latter is to be considered as the type of 

 the genus. When I discovered Elephantomyia, I had no other source of 

 information about Toxorrhina but the above quoted description. In con- 

 sequence, I drew an elaborate statement of the differences between Toxor- 

 rhina as I found it described and my specimens (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. 

 Philad. 1859, p. 221), and called the latter Elephantomyia. 



My purpose, in publishing this somewhat lengthy explanation, is to 

 justify the course I have adopted, which, owing to the intricacy of the 

 question, has been misunderstood ; and I hope that the eminent dipter- 

 ologist, whose collaboration I have enjoyed now for twelve years in the 

 publication of the North American Diptera, will not take offence if, in this 

 instance, my views are not in accordance with his. 

 g July 1868. 



