S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 34/1. (Budapest, 1981)

type o, labelled: "151. 25.V.

1915 Ochoser Höhle", "mikrops m ê o. det.-Duda" and "Limosina racowitzai Bezzi o, J. Rohácek det." (inv.no.1623/Ent. ), both deposited in the Moravian Museum, Brno. Limosina (Scotophilella) Raeovitzai var. Pokornyi Duda, 1918:113 syn.n. Lectotype 6* (des. by J. BOHÁCEK in 1979) labelled: "Agtelbarlg" (on green label) and "mikrops 6* det. Duda". Paralectotype o. with same locality label but without determination label; both deposited in the Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest. The specimens were originally identified by DUDA as "mikrops" but described as a variety of L. raeovitzai (cf. Duda, 1918:115). DUDA in CZIZEK (1916) described Limosina mikrops (original spelling!) not knowing BEZZI'

s (1911) description of L. raeovitzai and later (DUDA, 1918) considered it a darker colour variety of this species; in addition DUDA (1918) described a paler brown variety (var. Pokornyi)

. However, both these taxa are within the intraspecific variability of L. raeovitzai Bezzi and hence they become its junior synonyms. Limosina parvula Stenhammar, 1854 sp. rev. (Figs. 3, 4) Limosina parvula Stenhammar, 1854:422 Lectotype o. (des. by ROHÁCEK in 1979) labelled: "3.", "V.N." and "parvula" (STENHAMMAR'

s handwriting). The specimen is headless. Paralectotype ç unlabelled and without abdomen, located together with the lectotype in the drawer S23 (II) of STENHAMMAR' s collection (deposited in the Zoological Institute, Uppsala). The species has been confused with Limosina fungi cola Haliday, 1836 (= L. exigua Rondani, 1880) by all previous authors. DUDA (1918), followed by subsequent authors, considered Limosina parvula Stenn, to be a species dubia but the present examination of the preserved type material demonstrated that it is a valid species, different from L. fungicola. Contrary to the latter species L. parvula Stenn, has no shiny spot on stemopleuron, its apical scutellars are considerably longer than scutellum (at most as long as scutellum in L. fungico la)

, postverticals are present and R4+5 is more regularly curved (see Fig.

29 in DUDA, 1918) (true L. fungicola has R4+5 more sinuate). Moreover, there are distinct differences in the armature and form of the male 5th sternum (cf. Figs. 1, 3), telomere (cf. Figs. 2, 4), aedeagal complex and female postabdomen (

L. parvula has characteristic 8th female sternum being reduced to a narrow, in profile bent, T-shaped sclerite with 2 small anterior arch-shaped appendages, and cerci with thickened dorsopreapical hair). Judging from the other material examined (148 6

1 109 oj from England, Scotland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Denmark and Finland) the species is probably associated with decaying fungi (also some breeding records among material examined). On the contrary, Limosina fungicola Hal. was found to prefer decayed vegetation and to occur only occasionally on fungi which is rather paradoxical when considering its name. Limosina palmata Richards, 1927 Limosina (Limosina) Leruthi Duda, 1938:127 syn. n. Holotype o labelled: "B 45, 22.11.1935, R.Leruth leg.", "Limosina Leruthi D. 9 d. Duda" and "Type". Deposited in the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles (examined). The holotype of L. leruthi Duda agrees perfectly with L. palmata Rich. The main feature by which DUDA (1938) characterized L. leruthi

, the slightly up'curving R4+5, is without taxonomic significance and occurs rather commonly in L. palmata

. Limosina pseudosetaria Duda, 1918 Limosina (Scotophilella) pseudosetaria Duda, 1918:178 Holotype ô

1 labelled: "4 6 16", "pseudosetaria m. 6* det. Duda". Deposited in the Zoologisches Museum an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. The specimen is without locality label but according to DUDA (1918) it originates from EICKEL (FRG). Abdomen detached, dissected and preserved in a plastic tube in glycerine pinned below specimen.