REVIEWS. 
87 
genus, to which the name Clinocera Mg. should be applied in right of 
priority. The phraseology of Meigkn’s description evidently shows that 
at the time he published it he did not possess the original specimens, but 
only an old sketch, defective in many points, the course of the veins toward 
the base of the wing, for instance, and taken, besides, from a specimen 
with irregular venation. This will account for many obscurities in that 
description, and for the erroneous place in the system which he was in¬ 
duced to give to it, the consequence of which has been that the genus 
has not been generally recognised since. Individuals with irregular veins 
are not uncommon among the species of Clinocera , as well as of the neigh¬ 
bouring genera. In particular, the anterior branch of the cubital vein is 
sometimes connected with the radial by a supernumerary transverse vein, or 
it is often interrupted at the base, and not seldom obliterated entirely. 
Euthyneura. —The characteristic form of the discoidal areolet might 
have been added with advantage; and the identity of this genus with An- 
thalia Zett. should have been stated. 
The genera of Dolichopidce are divided and distinguished with much 
judgment. We could have wished to have seen the genus Dolichopus 
definitively resolved into two. In like manner, the author would have done 
service by a due subdivision of the genus Rhaphium. The distinction be¬ 
tween the genera Argyra and Porphyrops is the least satisfactory of any 
in this family. 
The generic characters among the Syrpliidce are not so happily drawn. 
Sufficient use has not been made of the differences of venation in the seve¬ 
ral genera; and in some cases important characters are neglected, as the 
naked wings of Eristalis, contrasted with IIelophilus and Mallota, in 
which they are pubescent; the peculiar disposition of the veins, which se¬ 
parates Volucella so decidedly from all the other genera, &c. In other 
cases mere specific differences are treated as generic characters; in Milesia, 
for instance, the separate termination of the subcostal (in the Latin text 
“ costalis”) and radial veins. The separation of some genera is based on 
untenable characters; as that of Orthoneura and Chrysogaster, on the 
form of the third joint of the antennae; while the onty real distinction be¬ 
tween them—the difference of venation—is not alluded to. The position of 
the species does not always correspond to the definition of the genera; 
thus Helophilus floreus is placed in the genus Eristalis. We cannot ap¬ 
prove either of the reunion of several genera usually considered as distinct; 
Brachypalpus and Criorrhina for example. 
Space will not permit us to review with the same minuteness the ge- 
