86 
REVIEWS. 
areolet open. 'The number of the veins (three) proceeding from the 
discoidal areolet to the hind margin also would have deserved a mention, 
as this distinguishes Phthiria from Geron ,' Oligodranes , &c. 
Scenopinus. —The epistoma is termed “ minime prominens,” which does 
not express its excavated form. The third joint of the antennas is described 
as “ subcylindricus truncatus” in the Latin text, and afterwards even as 
“pointed:” none of these terms seems to us to apply; least of all, 
“ obliquely truncated at the tipwe have never seen it otherwise than 
obtuse. The discoidal areolet is termed “ subretracta basalis we can 
discover nothing of the sort. It is not correct to call the abdomen margi- 
nated, if by this is meant the presence of a defined border ; but if sharp- 
edged is meant, this is not true of the male, nor yet of the living female; 
but in this sex the posterior segments do usually acquire a sharp edge 
from contraction when dried. 
In the family Empidce the differences in the venation of the wings have 
not obtained the place they deserve to hold among the generic characters. 
Empis. —The eyes are described as contiguous in the male, which is not 
by any means the case in all the species. 
Hilara. —In the Latin text the forked vein is denominated vena costalis , 
instead of cubitalis. The characteristic direction of the anterior branch in 
this genus should not have been unnoticed. 
Ragas. —The separation of this genus from Hilara seems proper, 
although the species of the two resemble each other very much. The spine 
on the underside of the middle femora in B. unica is simply a specific 
character, as it is not found in the same sex of Hilara minuta Zett., which 
must be referred to the same genus. 
Brachystoma. —The generic characters are taken from B. longicornis ; 
while B. vesiculosa , the most conspicuous species and the longest known, 
and of which the very short proboscis suggests the generic name, should 
be regarded as the type. The former species differs from this so much, 
that a new genus might well have been formed to receive it. 
Heleodromia. —The author has not followed Zetterstedt, who has united 
this genus with Brachystoma : in this we agree with him. But the sepa¬ 
ration from Wiedemannia Zett. is scarcely defensible, as no precise line can 
be drawn between the two, the length of the epistoma increasing by 
degrees, and concurrently therewith the protrusion and solidity of the 
membrane which connects the proboscis with the peristoma. We can dis¬ 
cover no other difference of any moment; so that we subscribe to the opi¬ 
nion expressed in the Addenda, that the two had best be conjoined in one 
