REVIEWS. 
79 
that of the typical genus. The genus Ozirhynchus Rond, is twice men¬ 
tioned as belonging to this family : it should have been observed that the 
name Clinorrliyncha is in use as a substitute for that spurious compound. 
3. Bibionid^e, and 4, Simulidjs. —We find nothing to criticise in the 
composition of these families. 
5* Chironomid.e, and 6, CuLiciDiE.—Departing from the ordinary usage, 
the genera Corethra and Mochlonyx are here removed from the former 
to the latter of these families—an innovation which to us appears an 
undoubted improvement of the system. A more distinct explanation of 
the grounds of this change might have been given, touching the structure 
of the proboscis especially, as this has hitherto been taken as the deter¬ 
mining motive for the place assigned to those genera. 
7. Phlebotomies.— It would have been a happier choice to have taken 
the family name from the older generic name, Psychoda , a genus richer, 
too, in species ; as the word itself suggests the peculiar aspect which all 
the members of the family derive from the dense pubescence; while the 
propensity to blood-sucking is confined to certain genera, which seem to 
form the like contrast to the rest of this family, which, among the Culicidce, 
Culexj Anopheles , and Aedes, on the one hand, do to Corethra and Moch¬ 
lonyx on the other. 
8. Heteroclits. —-This family is given subject to the express quali¬ 
fication that the author intends by it no natural group, but a merely 
artificial combination of two genera, Orphnephila and Dixa, for which he 
could find no place among the other families. The genus Orphnephila , in 
truth, is one of such a singular structure that it is not easy to arrive at 
any satisfactory conclusion as to its place. But as a purely artificial 
division of this sort is liable to objections, it might have been better to 
have referred Orphnephila , as an abnormal member, to some of the other 
families; and the relation of this genus to Macropeza would, perhaps, 
supply the best clue to the choice among them. Dixa might have been 
reduced to the family Tipulidce without any great difficulty. 
9. Tipulidce, and 10, Rhyphids. —There is nothing in the composition 
of these two families but what we may assent to; in particular to the 
genus Rhyphus being treated as the type of a distinct family, which we 
consider as standing in a closer relation to the Brachycera than does any 
other family among the Nemocera. 
In concluding this general review of the arrangement which Mr. Walker 
has adopted, having stated various points in which we differ from him, we 
would again repeat that it is one of the best—we might say the best sys- 
K 
