/ , jt/ „ 6U2llt/i,

f 7

k _ Ae_ ^ fe* itMc/di*r

tiiDdU^ \ £f*U tt 'fW:

r LIFE WORK

“. '-■ ” , ? -O' '“'. t> ' •' .- ' ' :

/0j!!||jli)

• ^

LS5.i' ' f'Hpi

Of,

lEllI 0>

^RECORD OF MY LIFE WORK

^ A. L. ICELANDER

IN ENTOMOLOGY

/ J. M. ALDRICH

C. R. OSTEN SACKEN

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
October, 1903

Xo.

SS

Two hundred and twenty-jive copies printed.

UNIVERSITY PRESS • JOHN WILSON
AND SON • CAMBRIDGE, U. S. A.

UHBSniAi IB ‘

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART PIRST

Introduction . 1

I Work in St. Petersburg (1854-1856) . 1

II Work in the United States (1856-1877) . 3

III Work in Europe (principally in Heidelberg) since 1877 . 9

Note on the Rise of the Order Diptera in Public Estimation during

the Nineteenth Century . 25

PART SECOND

Twenty-four Chapters on Historical, Biographical, Critical, and

purely Entomological Subjects connected with my Work 28

Preface . 28

I On the Beginnings of my Relations with Loew, with some

Remarks on the general Character of our Correspondence 29

This Chapter is illustrated by a facsimile of Loew’s hand¬
writing.

II On Loew’s Reception of my first Work on Tipulidae . . 32

III Robert Kennicott . 35

A notice on the services rendered to me by this American
naturalist who collected for me many Diptera, especially in the
northwestern region of the British possessions in North America.

IV Short Notices of Benjamin D. Walsh and Homer F. Bassett,

Correspondents in my Work on Cynipidae ; of Dr.
William Le Baron (1814-1876), Geneva, Illinois; and of

Mr. E. Foreman, Washington, D. C . 38

V A Contribution to the History of the Entomological Society

of Philadelphia . 41

An account of the very modest beginnings of this Society, due
to the co-operation of Dr. Th. B. Wilson, and especially of Mr.

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ezra T. Cresson. The extracts from the letters of the latter,
reproduced by me, afford an interesting insight into this remark¬
able instance of American enterprise and energy.

VI Winnertz and Loew . 44

A notice on the meritorious dipterologist Job. Winnertz, and an
account of the extraordinary injustice of Loew towards him.

VII Remarks, Historical and Critical, concerning Loew’s first
Volume of the “Monographs of North American Diptera”
Washington, 1862 . 47

I show' that, after more than twenty years of descriptive work
on Diptera, Loew found himself utterly unprepared to formulate
his general views on the terminology, as well as on the systematic
distribution of the families of this order. The very natural re¬
quest of the Smithsonian Institution to have some “ Introduction to
Dipterology ” placed at the head of the intended series of “ Mono¬
graphs ” filled him with fear and terror (“ Furcht und Grauen”).

The families in the volume are arranged most arbitrarily. Loew
was convinced that the principal subdivision of Diptera in Nemo-
cera and Brachi/cera must be given up, and if he did not at once
introduce this innovation into the volume, it is merely because he
felt repugnant to deviate too much from the accepted arrange¬
ment (“ urn nicht zu sehr von dein Gew'ohnten abzuweiehen ” ; in
a letter to me dated July 25, 1860. Compare, in the “Introduc¬
tion,” p. 10 at bottom, and p. 11).

VIII Haliday and Loew . 51

An account of the relations of these two eminent entomologists
and an attempt at a characterization of Haliday as a dipterologist.

To this Chapter is added a portrait of Mr. A. II. Haliday (the first
ever published).

IX On Loew’s Work on Amber Diptera in general, and on the

Circumstances of its ultimate Failure . 63

The fossil Diptera enclosed in the lumps of Amber abundantly
found on the Baltic coast of Prussia have always been one of the
favorite objects of Loew’s study. His first essay : “ Ueber den
Bernstein und die Bernsteinfauna,” Berlin, 1850, was but an im¬
perfect attempt to bring these fragments of an extinct fauna into
agreement with the systematic distribution of recent Diptera. Ilis
lecture, “ Ueber die Dipteren-Fauna des Bernsteins,” 1860, an Eng¬
lish translation of which was published by me in Silliman’s Jour¬
nal in 1801, contains an abstract of results, and very interesting
generalizations on the same subject. The dream of his life was
the publication of a general work on Amber Diptera which he had
conceived on a large scale, for which he had drawn a number of
plates, and must have prepared a great deal of letter-press. This
intended publication has never taken place. My long intercourse
with Loew has enabled me, in the above-quoted chapter, “ to
throw some light on this otherwise very obscure subject.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

V

X Notices on some Facts connected with the Publication of

the successive Volumes of the “ Monographs of North
American Diptera ” . 68

1 On my Share in translating from the German, and in

editing, the three Volumes of Loew’s “Monographs of
North American Diptera ” . 68

2 Ou the long Delay attending the Publication of the third

Volume of “Monographs of North American Diptera” . 69

3 The Smithsonian Conflagration in 1865 . 73

XI Dr. Hermann August Hagen . 74

An account of his woik on North American Neuroptera and Pseu-
doneuroptera and of my contributions to it. A characterization of
this excellent man.

XII An Account of the Circumstances attending the Transfer of
the Collection of North American Diptera accumulated
in the Hands of Loew from Guben, his Residence, to the
Museum in Cambridge, Mass . 77

The purpose and the final result of my twenty-one years’ co-opera¬
tion with Loew in working up the North American Diptera have
been summarily told in my “ Introduction ” (p. 3 to 8). The present
Chapter contains a detailed account of the last stage of the whole
transaction : the transfer of the collection from Guben, Loew’s
residence, to Cambridge, Mass. I conclude this account in the
following terms : “ In presence of the tragedy of Loew’s decline
and death . . . , we must not consider the detail, but the total result
of his contributions to American dipterology, which consists of a
very large amount of descriptive work, always thoroughly
conscientious, and of the realization of the long-cherished
ideal of a typical collection, which was delivered by Loew in a
perfect condition. This was the same Loew who, according to
his biographer, had made in his youth (and kept) the vow not to
partake of any warm food, until he had paid off the debts con¬
tracted during the penurious years of his University studies.”

XIII Special Report ou the Collection of North American Diptera,
accumulated in Guben, and transferred in 1877 to the

Museum in Cambridge, Mass . 92

1 How I received the Collection . 92

2 Miscellaneous Notes on the Localities of the Diptera in
Loew’s and my Collections (now both in the Museum in
Cambridge, Mass.), and on the Collectors who, besides
myself, have contributed to them . 94

This “ Special Report ” is likewise alluded to in my “ Introduc¬
tion ” (p. 8 in the middle). It contains an account of the state in
which I found the collection in Guben, and of what I have done
in preparing it for its transfer to the United States; It provides

TABLE OF CONTENTS

besides a multitude of miscellaneous notes on the localities of the
specimens, on the meaning of the labels and etiquettes of differ¬
ent shape and color occurring in it, and on the collectors who
have contributed these specimens.

XIV My Relations with Loew since my Return to Europe in 1877,

until his Death in 1879 . 9G

Since my visit to Loew in Guben in September, 1877, when I
had the North American collection packed up and sent to the
United States, I have not met Loew again. However, we ex¬
changed some letters. His last letter was dated April 21, 1878,
a year, day for day, before his death. It was written under dic¬
tation, and the signature betrayed a tremulous hand.

XV Prof. Fr. Hermann Loew. An Obituary Notice by C. St.

[Car us Sterne] . 99

Translated by me from the Deutsche Entomologische Zeit-
schrift of 1879. Cams Sterne is a pseudonym of the well-
known author Dr. Ernst Krause, a scholar of Loew, and later
his political friend.

XVI Characterization of Loew as a Dipterologist . 103

Appendix to Chapter XVI. Notice of the Dipterologist,

Ferdinand Kowarz . 135

In my “ Introduction ” (p. 21) I have referred to this Chapter in
the following terms : “ After twenty-nine years of relations with
him, I possess in his voluminous correspondence a source of in¬
formation which enables me to accomplish this task better than
anybody else, and I am convinced that I have fulfilled it with
impartiality.” To this Chapter a full-length portrait of Loew is
appended (the first ever published).

XVII Philipp C. Zeller as a Dipterologist . 137

“ In Zeller, the lepidopterist, the ideal of a perfect dipterol¬
ogist was lost,” is the motto of this Chapter. Zeller was, after
Rob.-Desvoidy, one of the few who put in practice the notion
that dipterology is the science, not of pinned Diptera only, but
also of Diptera in life. The two articles on Diptera by Zeller
in Oken’s Isis, 1840 and 1842, filling one hundred and thirteen
quarto double-column pages, “ are perhaps the most delightful
reading on Diptera in existence.” The most attractive depart¬
ment in these papers is the biological, “ consisting in accounts of
the habits and of the demeanor of flies,” “ noticing peculiari¬
ties in the behavior of almost every species,” etc. Such is the
well-deserved praise which I have bestowed upon Zeller. And
yet his publication on Diptera, buried as it is in the ponderous
volumes of Oken’s Isis “of sixty years ago, has remained
almost unknown to the majority of dipterologists.”

My Chapter on Zeller, besides a short biographical notice,
contains an account of the beneficial influence he had exercised

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Vll

upon Loew during the eight years (1860-1868) when they were
colleagues in the Gymnasium at Meseritz, an account princi¬
pally based on extracts from Loew’s letters to me.

XVIII Notice of Johann Wilhelm Zetterstedt (1785-1874) . . 142

Among the many services rendered to dipterology by Zeller,
a special mention must be made of the faithful assistance he
afforded to Zetterstedt during his long and persevering career,
culminating in the publication of fourteen volumes on Scandina¬
vian dipterology. The dedication which Zetterstedt placed at
the head of the first volume of this work was a well-deserved
compliment to Zeller: “ Zellero, inter Lepidopterologos et Dip-
terologos Europae magni, spectati et cari nominis viro ! ”

Loew had always treated Zetterstedt with studied disregard,
and had declined all correspondence with him. Zetterstedt
gave a proof of his magnanimity when in 1860, at the age of
seventy-five, as if in forgiveness of the past, he dedicated his
fourteenth and last volume to Loew, in the following terms :

“ Viro amplissimo, Doctori H. Loew, etc. Dipterologo nostri
aevi celeberrimo, liunc sui operis tomum dicavit J. W.
Zetterstedt.”

XIX Camillo Rondani and his Relations with Loew .... 144

This Chapter is based on my own impressions during my
meeting with Rondani in Parma (in 1873), on the materials I
gathered in the existing literature, on my correspondence with
Loew, and on three letters of Rondani to Loew, written in 1846,
which opened their correspondence, and which were found
among Loew’s papers. This Chapter offers a new instance of
the “sans fagons” manner of Loew in his relations with his
dipterological colleagues. At the same time it shows that
Rondani, as early as 1845, had called attention to the differ¬
ence between macrochaetae and ordinary bristles, and had in¬
troduced this new term for them. Although, in his later
publications, he did not give any further development to this
suggestion, it became the germ of the method of Chaetotaxy
which plays at present such an important role in dipterology.

Loew, to whom Rondani had sent his paper of 1845, did not
appreciate its contents, and began two years later the publica¬
tion of his “European Asilidae” (1847-1849) without making
any use of the cliaetotactic characters which, nevertheless, are
indispensable for the proper classification of this family.

XX Notes on Chaetotaxy, complementary to my previous

Publications on the same Subject . 153

These notes contain an account of the origin and progress of
Chaetotaxy, and a proposal for its improvement.

XXI An Account of the Breach between Loew and Scliiner . 158

As the estrangement between these two leading dipterologists
has had some importance in the history of dipterology, I have

TABLE OF CONTENTS

viii

in this Chapter given a detailed account of its origin and pro¬
gress. In my “ Introduction ” (p. 20) there is an allusion to this
very regrettable dissension.

XXII Brauer and Mik . 164

An Account of their Opposition to my new System of
Diptera followed by a Characterization of these two
Dipterologists . 164

Both Brauer and Mik have been on the best terms with me
until the publication of my article : “ On Prof. Brauer’s paper :
Yersuch einer Characteristik der Gattungen der Notacanthen ”

( Berl . Ent. Zeit., 1882), which provoked Brauer’s ire. After this
publication Mik found himself in an embarrassing position be¬
tween Brauer and me. He wished of course to remain on good
terms with the very sensitive Custodian of the Entomological
Museum of the Imperial and Royal Academy of Sciences in
Vienna, but at the same time, in his views, he was in most
cases in accordance with me. In his capacity of a reviewer and
critic of dipterological publications Mik began to sustain most
energetically Brauer’s innovations in the classification of Dip¬
tera. As I fully understood Mik’s perplexities, I bore these
indirect criticisms against me with perfect composure. When
my turn came to criticize Mik rather severely (Berl. Ent. Zeit.,

1896, p. 323), he took it in good part, and we remained friends
up to his premature death. The purpose of the Chapter
“ Brauer and Mik ” is to point out the incongruities in Mik’s
critical notices in the Wien. Ent. Monats. which arose from
this, for him, awkward situation. At the same time this Chap¬
ter contains a detailed characterization of both of these dip¬
terologists and of their work.

XXIII Xotice on the Circumstances of the Publication of two

principal Works (1830, 1863) of Robineau-Desvoidy . 180

My “Introduction” (p. 16, line 12 from bottom) contains an
allusion to an almost forgotten document of which I had made
use while inquiring into the circumstances of R.-Desvoidy’s first
publication (in 1830) : it is the Report upon it, drawn up by the
Committee of the Academy of Sciences in Paris in 1826, and
which authorized its publication. The second of R.-Desvoidy’s
works (dated 1863), having been published after his death by per¬
sons not familiar with the subject, contains some errors which
it was necessary to point out in order to make the work service¬
able in future.

XXIV Aerial and Terrestrial Diptera . 192

An attempt to define the adaptive structural modifications

produced by the two life-habits of Diptera.

Part Tlnrd of this “ Record" contains the List of my entomological
publications. It is already prepared m manuscript, and will be jmblished as
soon as possible.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Facsimile of Loew’s Handwriting . 31

Alexis H. Halida y . 62

Hermann Loew . 137

PAET FIRST

INTRODUCTION

This “Introduction” was first printed as a separate pamphlet by the Cam¬
bridge (England) University Press, and was dated January 30, 1901. This second
edition is a reprint of the first, and the principal change introduced consists in the
mode of reference to the Chapters on various subjects which, instead of being
distributed among the items of the “ List ” of my publications (an arrangement
that I had announced in the Prospectus of my “Record” published in June,
1901), appear now collected in Part II. The reason for this change will be found
explained in the Preface of that Part.

The items of the “ List ” of my publications, which will form Part Third of
this “ Record,” are generally referred to in Parts I and II by the mere quotation
of the number and date of the “ List,” which are printed in heavy-faced type. By
means of this arrangement the papers required will be easily found, and the cum¬
bersome repetition of their headings avoided.

My entomological career may be divided into three distinct
periods, dependent on my places of residence during each of them.

I WORK IN ST. PETERSBURG (1854-1856)

Born in St. Petersburg on the twenty-first of August, 1828, I
began at the early age of eleven to take an interest in entomology.
It was during a temporary residence with my mother in Baden-
Baden (1838-1839) that I met a young Russian, Mr. Schatiloff,
who gave me my first instruction in collecting Coleoptera.

Joseph Nikolaievitch Schatiloff (1824-1890), a Russian nobleman, four years
older than myself, had been initiated into the study of entomology by the Italian
naturalist and traveller Gaetano Osculati , in whose villa near Monza in Lombardy
he and his father spent the autumn of 1838. (The Diptera collected by Oscu¬
lati in South America have been described by Rondani in the Nuov. Ann. Sci. Nat.,
Bologna, 1850.) Schatiloff devoted himself later to general zoology, and especially

1

o

WORK IN ST. PETERSBURG

to ornithology, following a most honorable career of many-sided usefulness, prin¬
cipally in Southern Russia. Ilis biography and portrait were published in the
Collection of Biographies of Russian Naturalists, edited by Prof. A. BogdanofF, at
the expense of the Imperial Moscow Society of Natural Sciences , in three quarto
volumes (1888-1891), with 38 plates containing 342 portraits. Schatiloff’s por¬
trait is in Yol. II, Plate YII; his biography is in Vol. II.

Later on, in St. Petersburg, where I received my education and
entered (in 1849) into the service of the Imperial Foreign Office,
I made collections in all orders of insects except Lepidoptera. The
results of this work of mine, so far as published, are represented
by the first three numbers of my “ List,” namely: —

1 (1854). An article in the Stett. Ent. Zeit. in which I set
forth some ideas on a new classification of the Tipulidae , which
ideas I carried out in later years (1859, 1868, etc.).

2 (1857). Another paper in the Stett. Ent. Zeit. refers to my
discovery, in the environs of St. Petersburg, of the long-lost and
misunderstood Tipida ( Trocliobola ) anmdata Linrnh

3 (1857). A pamphlet of one hundred and sixty-six pages in
Russian, which I had left in manuscript when I departed for the
United States in 1856, and which for that reason was published
during my absence. This work contains a general survey of the
insect fauna of the environs of St. Petersburg so far as known
at that time, with a List of species of the different orders (except
Lepidoptera'), geographical and historical accounts, etc. This
publication brought to a natural conclusion the first period of
my entomological career.

In 1856 I was appointed Secretary of Legation in Washington,
and started for my destination in the first days of April of that
year. During my journey, which lasted two months, I made the
acquaintance of the principal entomologists and zoologists in the
cities I visited. At Ivonigsberg, Prussia, I met Dr. II. A. Hagen ,
and formed an acquaintance which ripened later into a lifelong
friendship, and became of great importance for American ento¬
mology. (A notice of Dr. Ilagen will be found in Part II,
Chapter XI.) Some of the German entomologists — King and
Itulhe (Berlin), Kiesemvetter (Dresden), Schiner, Brauer , Kolenati ,
etc. O ienna), C. A. Dohrn (Stettin) — I had already met during

WORK IN THE UNITED STATES

3

an earlier journey in 1852-1853. In Berlin I had a long and inter¬
esting interview with Alexander von Humboldt in his house, but
our conversation had little to do with entomology. Although
eighty-seven years old at that time, and much bent by age, he
was remarkably active, both physically and mentally.

In the course of my further journey, I visited Winnertz at
Crefeld (with whom I had corresponded before), Baron de Selys
Long champs, Candeze, and others in Belgium, van der Wulp,
Snellen van Vollenhoven , etc., in Holland. In London I made
(and in part renewed') acquaintance with the principal entomolo¬
gists, some of whom I remembered having met before during a
visit to England in 1852 ( Westwood , Stainton , Francis Walker ,
Adam White , etc.). In the beginning of June I embarked at
Liverpool on the steamer “ Arabia,” and landed in New York after
a passage of thirteen days.

II WORK IN THE UNITED STATES (1856-1877)

The second period of my entomological career embraces the
twenty-one years of my residence in the United States (1856-1877),
during which, until 1862, I was Secretary of the Russian Legation
in Washington ; in that year I was appointed Consul General of
Russia in New York, which thus became my residence between
1862 and 1871. I resigned my post in 1871 and made several
journeys to Europe and back, until, in the autumn of 1873 (this
time as a private citizen), I again settled in the United States,
where I remained till 1877. These twenty-one years were, as
regards entomology, principally devoted, in collaboration with
Dr. H. Loew , to the task of working up the Biptera of North
America north of the Isthmus of Panama. A great deal of my
time, as will be seen, was spent in acting as a purveyor of ma¬
terial for Loew to work upon, and as a translator and editor of his
manuscripts.

Hermann Loew , born (1807) at Weissenfels, Prussia, was Professor in Posen
about 1840, Director of the “ Realschule ” in Meseritz (Posen) from 1850 to May,
1868, and finally lived in retirement at Guben (Saxon Prussia) from 1868 up to
the year of his death. A translation of a sympathetic biography of Loew, by his
political friend Dr. Ernst Krause (known in literature under the pseudonym of

4

WORK IN' THE UNITED STATES

Cams Sterne), will be found in the present “Record,” Part II, Chapter XV. In
Chapter XVI I have given a Characterization of Loew as a Dipterologist.

A complete list of Loew’s publications on the dipterous fauna of America
will be found in my “Catalogue of North American Diptera,” edit. 2, 1878,
p. xxxiv-xxxvi.

Dr. II. Loew, with whom I had had a short correspondence pre¬
viously (about 1850-1851) concerning Trochobola annulcita Linne,
which was soon interrupted, showed a great eagerness to renew it
when he heard of my appointment to the United States. I readily
fell in with his wishes, in the hope of utilizing his well-known
working-power in the interest of American dipterology. After a
rather long, ^wasLtentative correspondence, during the first years
of my residence in America, about the mode and conditions of
our proposed co-operation, we came to the following agreement : I
promised to send to Loew as much material as I could, on the con¬
dition, however, that he should consider the collection thus gradu¬
ally accumulating in his hands not as his property, but as a trust.
My purpose was, by this means, to form a collection of North Amer¬
ican Diptera containing the type-specimens described by Loew, as
well as specimens determined by him from earlier authors, and,
as the case might be, an abundant supply of as yet undescribed
and undetermined specimens. Such a collection I expected,
sooner or later, to be brought back to the United States, in order
to form a solid foundation for the further study of the American
fauna. This scheme enabled me to receive without stint the
numerous contributions in collections and specimens which were,
most generously, put at my disposal by different collectors during
my long residence in the United States. As will be shown in
the sequel, this scheme came to a successful conclusion, princi¬
pally in consequence of the generous intervention of Prof. Louis
Agassiz. In 1877 this collection, containing (according to Loew’s
estimation) about 1850 species described by himself, 330 species
described by earlier authors, and a large number of undescribed
species, forming a total of about 3000 species, came back to the
I nited States and was safely housed in the Museum of Compara¬
tive Zoology in Cambridge, Mass. At the same time Loew received
from the Museum a liberal remuneration for his work on the col-

WORK IN THE UNITED STATES

5

lection. (A more detailed account of the whole transaction will he
found in Part II, Chapter XII.)

This is not all. During my long residence in the United States
I had formed a collection of Diptera for my own use. It con¬
tained : —

(1) All the types of the new species described in my own mono¬
graphs, and in my other papers of this period ( Tipulidae brevipalpi ,
Tabanidae, Cecidomyiidae , Western Diptera , etc.).

(2) Numerous duplicates, many of them numbered , of the spe¬
cies I had sent to Loew for the purpose of having them described.
Such specimens, not having crossed the ocean twice, and not having
been so much handled as the typical specimens of the collection in
Loew’s hands, were for these reasons in a much better state of
preservation. Of this my own collection I made a present to the
same Museum in Cambridge, Mass., as a token of my gratitude to
Professor Agassiz for his generous assistance in the realization
of my principal scheme. During the two winters which I spent
in Cambridge, Mass. (1873-1875), I incorporated in this collection
the dipterological materials accumulated in the Museum before
1873, principally by Mr. P. R. Uhler, and thus formed a collec¬
tion which is now kept separate from the other collection, and
which affords a useful supplement to it.1 A considerable collec¬
tion which I had formed of deformations of plants (as galls of
Cynipidae, Cecidomyiidae, Trypetidae, etc.), fungoid excrescences,
and also vegetable hypertrophies, was included in this gift.

Thus far, for clearness’ sake, I have anticipated events, and now
I return to June, 1856 (the date of my landing in New York), for
the purpose of giving a more circumstantial account of my share
in the common work, between Loew and myself, on the dipterous
fauna of North America. My first task was the compilation of a
Catalogue of all the previously described species of the Diptera of
North America. It was accepted for publication by the Smith¬
sonian Institution , and was the third of the long series of entomo¬
logical works since published by that Institution (compare my
“List,” 4, 1858).

1 On this collection I made a detailed Report to the Trustees of the Museum. Com¬
pare 44 (1875) of my “List.”

6

WORK IN THE UNITED STATES

The first publication of the Smithsonian Institution on the subject of ento¬
mology was Prof. Louis Agassiz’s article: “On the Classification of Insects from
Embry ological Data” ( Smiths . Contributions to Knoivledge, Vol. II, 1851, 28
pages). The second publication of the same class was Dr. F. E. Mclsheimer’s
“Catalogue of the Coleoptera of the United States,” revised by S. S. Haldeman
and J. L. Leconte. (Smiths. Instit. 1853.)

Twenty years later, and almost simultaneously with the installa¬
tion of the two above-mentioned typical collections of Diptera in
the Museum in Cambridge, Mass., my entomological work in the
United States was concluded by the publication of a second , this
time critical Catalogue, likewise published by the Smithsonian
Institution, representing the state of North American dipterology
at that time, and showing the progress achieved (see my “ List,”
61, 1878). This second Catalogue has the advantage of being
represented by the two type-collections deposited in the Museum
of Cambridge, Mass.

Eighty-four years ago, Wiedemann, in his Zoologisches Magazin, 1817, Preface,
p. 3, said: “It was an excellent idea of the highly respected Count Hoff-
mannsegg to found a normal museum of natural history, in which, as much
as possible, every species, properly authenticated by the severest test of criticism,
should be deposited as original type, and made accessible to any worker for the
comparison or identification of species, doubtful or supposed to be new.” (I have
referred to this passage before, in my Catalogue, edit. 2, 1878, Preface, p. viii.)
The Museum of Comparative Zoology in Cambridge, Mass., and the National
Museum in Washington, D. C., have, at present, fully realized this idea of
Hoffmannsegg.

In consequence of my arrangement with Loew, as I have said
above, my principal efforts after 1856 consisted in procuring him
materials to describe, and in translating and editing his manu¬
scripts. It required some abnegation on my part to impose upon
myself this laborious (and comparatively subordinate) part of a
middle-man, occupied as I otherwise was with my official and social
duties.1 Ever since the beginning of my entomological career I
have felt a decided preference for observations on the living sub¬
ject, for questions connected with classification, and for the study of
entomological literature. And I always had a marked repugnance

1 About my social duties I shall merely state that, in Washington, they were
necessarily connected with my diplomatic position, and that in New York my visiting-
list contained over one hundred houses where I had been invited to dine.

WORK IN THE UNITED STATES

7

for merely descriptive work, and submitted to it (a mom corps de¬
fendant) only when it was unavoidable. Thus, in consequence
of my agreement with Loew, I could hope to obtain excellent de¬
scriptions of the collections brought together by me, and, at the
same time, pursue my own favorite studies independently. For
the latter, I had reserved for myself the Tipulidae brevipalpi , and
later, the Tabanidae. Both families have been treated monograph¬
ic ally by me.

Besides my principal works (my two Catalogues , the papers on
Tipulidae , Tabanidae , Cecidomyiidae , Cynipidae , the Western Dip-
tera, and the translating and editing of the three volumes of
Loew’s Monographs) I wrote, during my residence in the United
States, a considerable number of papers on other entomological
subjects. All these are enumerated in my “ List.”

I also attempted to be useful in corresponding with American
entomologists, and in naming Diptera for them. As a memento of
this correspondence, I have before me GIT letters received from 99
American correspondents between 1856 and 1872.

It would, have been a grateful task to me, and an interesting contribution to the
history of the development of entomological studies in the United States and
Canada, to prepare an account of this correspondence and to recall the names of
many worthy observers of nature (often unknown to fame) who took part in it.
Such an account would have been foreign to the immediate purpose of the present
publication, aud would have occupied too much space in it, but circumstances per¬
mitting, I may, some day, devote a separate publication to it. [This was written
before 1898 ; since then my “circumstances” have made it impossible to realize
this project.]

During the winter of 1857-1858 I visited Cuba (where I spent
five weeks) and returned by way of New Orleans, Montgomery, Ala.,
Savannah, and Florida. Although the season was not the best for
collecting, I brought many specimens home, especially from Florida.
In Havana I made the acquaintance of the excellent Prof. Felipe
. Poey , who at that time already looked old, though he lived for
thirty-five years longer. It must have been on my way home to
Washington that I paid a visit in Columbia, S. C. (the exact date I
do not remember), to Christoph Zimmermann , a German coleopter-
ist, whose name may be found in Ilagen’s Bibliotheca as author of
papers on Zabrus , Aniara, etc. (1830-1832). lie most positively

8

WORK IN THE UNITED STATES

refused to have anything to do with Diptera, although he might
have been very useful to me by contributing specimens from South
Carolina.1

As I said above, in 1871 I resigned my post of Consul General of
Russia in New York, and remained a part of the following two years
in Europe. In September, 1873, I returned to the United States,
and spent the interval between this year and 1875 principally in
working at the Diptera of the Museum of Comparative Zoology in
Cambridge, Mass, (where I had deposited my collections during my
absence), and in preparing materials for the projected new edition
of my Catalogue of North American Diptera. Between Decem¬
ber, 1875, and September, 1876, I made a journey to California, the
Sierra Nevada, and the Rocky Mountains, whence I brought back
considerable collections. A portion of the collection of Californian
Diptera was worked up by me in my Western Diptera, 53 (1877),
after which publication I bade farewell (and this time for good) to
the United States, and sailed in June for Europe.

One of the first duties I had to fulfil, after my return to Europe,
was to go to Guben, the residence of Loew, and to secure the ship¬
ment to the United States of the large collection of North American
Diptera which, for the last twenty years, had been accumulating in
his hands ; an arduous and risky business for me to undertake, but
one which was nevertheless successfully accomplished. The whole
collection arrived safely at Boston (in the autumn of 1877), and, as
I have related above, was deposited in the Museum in Cambridge,
Mass. With this transfer, and the almost simultaneous publication
of the secoyid edition of my Catalogue of North American Diptera
(1878), the principal object of my entomological labor in the
United States was fulfilled. An outline of the transactions which
have led to these results has been given by me in this “ Introduc¬
tion”; a detailed account will be found in this “Record,” Part II,
Chapter XII.

The two men who principally influenced the American period
of my entomological career were Loew , and S. F. Baird of the

1 In Loew’s “ Centuries ” some species are marked : Carolina (Zimmermann). The
specimens must have been found by Loew in other collections and not among the ma¬
terials which he received from me.

WORK IN EUROPE

9

Smithsonian Institution. A considerable portion of my “ Record ”
of this period has, for this reason, been devoted to Loew, and it
remains for me to pay a tribute of heartfelt gratitude and admi¬
ration to Baird , to whose encouragement, support, and example
I owe a considerable share of my success. I have often thought
that if I were asked to name the man who, in my opinion, was
morally nearest to perfection , I should unhesitatingly name Spencer

F. Baird (1823-1887). I was therefore glad to find in the volume
of the History of the First Half Century of the Smithsonian Insti¬
tution (Washington, 1897) a biography of Baird (p. 157-200) by

G. B. Goode, which proves that the very exalted opinion I had of
him was fully shared by many distinguished men who were nearest
to him. In this work (p. 157) he is characterized as follows : —

“ He was one of those rare men, perhaps more frequently met
with in the New World than elsewhere, who give the impression of
being able to succeed in whatever they undertake. Although he
chose to be a naturalist, and of necessity became an administrator,
no one who knew him could doubt that he would have been equally
eminent as a lawyer, physician, mechanic, historian, business man,
soldier, or statesman.”

The secret of Baird’s influence lay in the immediate effect of his
character upon those who came in contact with him ; in his force of
will, his rare simplicity and directness of manner, combined with
the utmost kindliness and evident rectitude of purpose, to which
were added an extraordinary executive capacity and the tact of
selecting proper men for the work he intended for them.1

Ill WORK IN EUROPE (PRINCIPALLY IN HEIDELBERG)
SINCE 1877

For my European residence I selected Heidelberg, where I made
up my mind to spend the rest of my life. As I had left all my
entomological collections in the United States, I made the acquisi¬
tion of the remains of Professor Zeller’s collection of European
Diptera. Celebrated as a specialist in Microlepidoptera, Zeller had

1 An excellent obituary notice of Professor Baird was published in the New York
Nation, 1887, No. 1170.

10

WORK IN EUROPE

also done some excellent work in Diptera (compare my notice about
Zeller as a Dipterologist , Part IT, Chapter XVII). This collection
afforded me the necessary material in specimens for study and
comparison.

While in the United States, my principal task had consisted, as
I have shown, in working up, in collaboration with Loew, the Dip¬
tera of the North American fauna. Nevertheless, my favorite study
was always in the direction of classification. iVIy very first publi¬
cation, in 1854, foreshadowed the improved arrangement of the
Tipulidae, which I more or less brought to maturity (1859-1869)
before leaving America. Once settled in Europe, I considered my
task on North American Diptera as concluded, and attempted to
extend my horizon by the study of Asiatic, African, and Australian
forms. Preparatory to these new studies, I began by compiling a
Catalogue of all the previously described Diptera 1 from all parts of
the world, excluding Europe (together with Siberia and Central
Asia, which I considered as belonging, zoologically, to Europe) and
North America north of Panama. This task took me several
months ; but, once done, it proved an immense resource for my
future descriptive work. I published descriptions of Diptera from
the Malay Archipelago , from New Guinea, from the Philippine
Islands, and from Central America , 77 (1881-1882), 83 (1882), 111
(1886-1887). I also developed my classification of the Tipulidae ,
by describing new forms peculiar to recently explored regions, 115
(1886) and 118 (1887).

Although in preparing these publications I acquired a good deal
of morphological knowledge, I soon became aware that, owing to
the very imperfect state of the classification in most of the families
of Diptera, and to the old routine methods of description, this kind
of promiscuous descriptive work did not satisfy my entomological
conscience. As I expressed it (Biol. Centr.-Amer., Diptera , 111
(1886), p. 75): “The mere describer of a limited collection who
attempts at the same time to improve the classification may be
compared to a traveller who, having his own road to make, finds

1 As this Catalogue is incomplete, and was prepared merely for my own use, it was
never intended for publication, and remains in manuscript. Nevertheless, it may still
prove useful in future for controlling an independent publication of the same kind.

WORK IN EUROPE

11

his progress slow and his road bad.” This feeling of dissatis¬
faction led me to look out for new methods of description, based
upon the discovery of new descriptive characters, and thus I hit
upon my System of Chaetotaxy , 80 (1881), 102 (1884), the use¬
fulness of which has been fully recognized since.

The same intention, to introduce new descriptive characters, led
me to publish my papers: Suggestions, etc., 128 (1891), On the
Characters of the three Divisions , etc., 130 (1892), and On the atavic
Index-Characters, etc., 138 (1894). The second, and principal of
these papers, Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1892 : On the Characters of the three
Divisions of Diptera : Nemocera vera , Nemocera anomala , and
Eremocliaeta , contains two important innovations : —

(1) The attempts of Loeiv, Brauer , and others to obliterate the
distance separating the Nemocera from the Brachycera , as indicated
by Latreille (Macquart merely supplied the name for the second
group), by means of what they took for transitional forms, are
proved to rest upon a fallacy. “ No transitional forms have , as yet ,
been discovered between these groups, either in the living or in the
fossil faunas. We do not yet know a single dipteron, the position
of which , between the two groups, can be called in doubt " (loc. cit.,
p. 42 1).1 For this reason, in order to maintain the separation be¬
tween the Nemocera and Brachycera, instead of the two suborders
of Diptera proposed by Brauer ( Orthorrhapha and Cyclorrhapha )
I introduced three : Orthorrhapha Nemocera, Orthorrhapha Brachy¬
cera , and Cyclorrhapha Athericera , thus combining the nomencla¬
ture of Latreille derived from the antennae, with that of Brauer
derived from the mode of transformation.

This step of mine was not exactly an innovation ; it was rather
a restoration. After the lapse of a century since Latreille’s earli¬
est publications, the classification of the Diptera not only had
not advanced in its principal feature, but had run the risk of
a revolution which would have driven it back behind Latreille s
position. The prevention of such a retrogression is perhaps the
principal service I rendered to dipterology in my work on its
classification.

1 Transitional forms must of course have existed at some previous geological age
but such forms have not yet been discovered.

12

WORK IK EUROPE

In my “ Historical and critical remarks concerning Loew’s first volume of the
£ Monographs of North American Diptera,’ etc.,” in this “ Record,” Part II, Chapter
VII, I have reproduced a passage of his letter to me, dated July 25, 1860, in
which he formally expressed his opinion that the coalescence of Nemocera and
Brachycera was an accomplished fact, and that he would have introduced this
innovation in the new Catalogue of North America Diptera, if he had been the
author of it !

(2) The other innovation, introduced by me in my 130 (1892),
was to show that, within the three suborders, the existing families
of Diptera could be easily arranged into larger groups, which I
called Divisions , but which, since the appearance of Prof. J. H. Com¬
stock's Manual, etc. (1895), I prefer with him to call Superfamilies.
I called attention to characters which the families belonging to
such superfamilies have in common ; characters of which most
had heretofore been entirely overlooked or neglected. The impor¬
tance, for instance, of the character derived from the structure of
the head in the male, which I called lioloptic , had never been
sufficiently appreciated before, so much so that there was no
special term even to designate this structure. The total absence
of this character in my superfamily Nemocera vera , combined with
several other characters borrowed from different parts of the body,
as well as from the early stages, justifies the separation of this
Division from the superfamily Nemocera anomala , so called because
I placed in it a number of anomalous, ancestral forms, not having
any apparent connection between them. At the same time, there
is no doubt that both superfamilies belong to the same suborder
Orthorrhapha Nemocera.

Within the suborder Orthorrhapha Brachycera I have formed,
for the families Stratiomyiidae , Tabanidae , Acanthomeridae , and
Leptidae (including the Xylophagidae) , the superfamily Eremo-
chaeta , characterized by the predominance of lioloptic heads in
the male sex, and by the remarkable instability in the structure
of the antennae, a character which I have called “ morphological
restlessness A conspicuous peculiarity of this superfamily is the
total absence of macrochaetae , from which 1 have derived its name.
Other characters are taken from the legs, provided, in most cases,
with three pul villi ; from the wings, which in most cases have five
posterior cells ; and from the shape of the more or less developed

WORK IN EUROPE

13

thoracic squamae, which do not exist in the Xemocera , etc. The
larvae belong to a peculiar type, called the long-headed larvae
(Marno).

An important feature of my superfamily Eremochaeta is the
suppression of the old-fashioned family Xylophagidae. I showed
that, from the very beginning, it was founded on the erroneous
notion of a close affinity between the genera Xylophagus and Su-
hula. It was a spurious family, not founded on any distinctly
defined concept, and therefore a stumbling-block for a future de¬
velopment of the classification. Routine, and nothing else, had
kept up this arrangement so long. When I found it reproduced
in Brauer’s paper on the Notacantha (1882), I took occasion to state
my objections in the Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1882, p. 364-366, 89 (1882),
where a detailed historical statement is given. The components of
the old-fashioned Xylophagidae (including, probably, even Chiro-
myza') must be absorbed in an enlarged concept of the family
Leptidae. Since the discovery of many transitional forms in
Xortli America, Chili, and Australia, such a result is unavoidable,
although a great deal remains yet to be cleared up.1

In continuing my researches after 1892, I proposed, five years
later in the Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1897, the introduction of three new su-
perfamilies to complete the subdivision of the Orthorrhapha Bra-
chycera, 158 (1897). My new scheme was principally founded upon
the contrast between aerial and pedestrian Diptera, a contrast the
chief features of which had been already foreshadowed by me in my
Essay on Chaetotaxy (102 (1884), p. 500-501), and to which I
have given a further development in the above-quoted paper in the
Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1897, p. 366—367. In the present “ Record,” Part
II, Chapter XXIV, I have given an elaborate essay on the influence
of the two modes of life-habit on the organization of all the families
of Diptera. Besides the superfamily (1) Eremochaeta , adopted by
me in 1892, the three new ones, introduced in 1897, were (2)
Mydaidae , for this single family, which I consider as a relic of an

1 I cannot, of course, reproduce here the numerous innovations introduced in my
130 (1892), for instance in the grouping of the families within the superfamily Nemo-
cera vent, and must refer the reader to the paper itself, or to the account of it given in
the “ List.”

14

WORK IN EUROPE

earlier geological period; (3) Tromoptera , for the prevailingly aerial
Diptera (. Nemestrinidae , Cyrtidae , Bombyliidae , Therevidae , Scenopi-
nidae ); and (4) Eneryopoda for the pedestrian Diptera ( Asilidae ,
Dolichopodidae , Empidae , Lonchopteridae , Phoridae ). Objections
have been raised against the juxtaposition of the Asilidae and the
Dolichopodidae , etc., in the same superfamily. I believe that this
juxtaposition is sufficiently justified by the structure of the head, of
the antennae, and of the genital organs in this superfamily as con¬
ceived by me, and that the connection between the Asilidae and the
rest of the families comprised in it is found in the Mydaid-like and
ancestral section Apiocerina , the different forms of which occur in
Australia, Chili, and some parts of North America, which are coun¬
tries abounding in ancestral forms.

I feel convinced that the new distribution of the Orthorrhaplia Bracliycera
which I have proposed is better than the previous one. But at the same time I
am far from expecting, or even desiring, that it should be immediately accepted
in handbooks of dipterology, or introduced into collections of Diptera. My
feeling about it is distinctly expressed in the last passage of my Preliminary
Notice, etc. ( Berl . Ent. Zeit., 1896, p. 373), which says : “My paper is a ballon
d’essai, which I launch, attentive to the course it will follow ! ” Much remains
to he done in anatomical and biological research before the final introduction of
my new arrangement into dipterological practice can take place; and Dr. D.
Sharp, in his Insects (London, 1899, p. 456-457), has set a good example in not
adopting this arrangement, but in giving a short account of it, and calling the
attention of advanced students to it.

The views concerning Zoological Classification and the Nomen¬
clature connected with it which I have gradually developed during
my studies may be summed up as follows : I understand the office
of both to be merely mnemonic : they represent a scheme for the
arrangement of animal forms tending to make the affinities exist¬
ing between them tangible and easier to remember. I expressed
this opinion for the first time in the Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1895, p. 160,
144 (1895) in the following terms : “ The true end of classification
is an easier survey of affinities, a temporary aid to memory. In
space and time all divisions become convergent and finally con¬
fluent.” Classification is not necessarily permanent. If zoologists
had existed in different geological epochs they would have intro¬
duced different arrangements, to answer the requirements of their

WORK IN EUROPE

15

times. Modern classifications have been modified in consequence
of newly discovered recent or fossil forms. If we knew in all its
details the evolution of the successive forms of living beings, classi¬
fication would have been replaced by the history of that evolution.
But as our knowledge of this history is only very fragmentary, the
practical task of the classifier of the present time consists in contriv¬
ing a scheme of arrangement to contain the recent fauna and
the fragments of the/om7 fauna, so far as known.

In the “ Life and Letters of T. H. Huxley,” by his son L. Huxley, London,
1900, Vol. I, p. 312, I find the following passage about fossil remains: “ What a
wonderful assemblage of beasts there seems to have been in South America ! I sus¬
pect if we could find them all they would make the classification of Mammalia
into a horrid mess.”

Ever since I began, more than fifty years ago, to reflect upon the
true aim of classification, I have recognized evolution as a logical pos¬
tulate, a sine qua non of organized life. Darwin’s work of 1859 gave
a new impulse to my thinking, and I gradually came to consider the
evolution of organic forms through geological ages as the Growth
of the tree of Life (to use the expression of Genesis iii. 22), whose
branches and branchlets, under the ambient influences which pre¬
vailed under each of the successive epochs, were subjected to the
regimen of adaptation. Natural selection, according to my view,
has been the result (or effect ) of adaptation, and not the cause of
evolution. I have compared the evolution of organic forms to the
growth of a tree of life. But, as the French say, “ comparaison n’est
pas raison.” What is Life ? On this question I adhere, at least in
the present state of our knowledge, to the humble avowal of Pro¬
fessor Du Bois-Reymond : “ Ignorabimus ! ” (Du Bois-Reymond,
“ Ueber die Grenzen des naturwissenschaftlichen Erkennens.”
Leipzig, 1872, p. 83.)

Under different conditions of temperature, land, water, and air,
during geological ages, a multiplicity of terrestrial, aquatic, and
aerial organizations has been evolved. Among this variety of
influences, a special mode of life, parasitism , in its various forms,
became a potent agency in producing aberrant organizations. In
the class of insects, it is due to parasitism (and especially to the
internal parasite) that such specialized forms as Rhipiptera and the

16

WORK IN EUROPE

Meloidae (among tlie Coleoptera), Mantispa (among the Neuroptera),
Gyrtidae , Conopidae, Pipunculidae , Oestridae, Tacliinidae, Plioridae ,
even Anthrax, Bombylius , and others (among the Diptera), and
numerous similar instances among the Hymenoptera exist. Com¬
mensalism likewise produces aberrant forms, like the Pselaphidae ,
Paussidae, and Lomechusa strumosa ( Staphylinidae ) among the
Coleoptera, and it is difficult to draw the line between commensalism
and some forms of parasitism in the widest acceptation of the term.

In the course of my new studies I came gradually to abandon
descriptive dipterology. Since 1890 especially, I undertook a more
thorough study of the earlier literature, which has been much
neglected by most authors. I found that valuable hints contained
in the writings of Latreille , Lyonet , Rob.-Desvoidy , etc., had been
overlooked or insufficiently studied, and that, by means of a study
of earlier authors, neglected characters introduced by them might
be rediscovered, and the synonymy of genera and species, the sys¬
tematic nomenclature, and the terminology of organs might be
improved. Thus a series of papers, classificatory, critical, historical,
and bibliographical, came to be published.

These papers either bore a general character, like that already
quoted : On the Characters of the three Divisions , etc., 130 (1892) ; or
they treated of single families and groups, like the Blepharoceridae ,
60 (18T8), 124 (1891), 144 (1895); Psychodidae , 146 (1895), 150
(1895); Nemestrinidae , 162 (1897); Apiocerina, 93 (1883), 109
(1886), 123 (1891). A similar paper on Cyrtidae, which was nearly
finished in 1895, is still unpublished. The much-debated question
on the right spelling of My das or Midas was critically settled, 149
(1895). Similar questions on the terminology of certain organs
were historically investigated in the papers : On the Terms Teyula ,
Squama, Alula, etc., 154 (1896); On the Terms Calyptrata and Acalyp-
trata , 157 (1897) ; Zur Greschichte der sogenannten Brustyrdte , etc.,
135 (1893). Criticisms appeared of publications of contemporary
authors, Brauer , 89 (1882), 136 (1893), 137 (1893) ; Mik, 122 (1890),
126 (1891), 156 (1897); Williston , 127 (1891); also bibliographical
papers, like the Lists of the publications of Rondani , 79 (1881), 98
(1884), 106 (1885) ; and Loew , 104 (1884) ; a critical appreciation
of the relative value of the two editions of Loew's “ Tosener Dip-

WORK IN EUROPE

17

teren ” of 1840, 153 (1896). An investigation of the circumstances
under which Rob.-Desvoidy's two successive works on the Myo-
daires were published is incorporated in the present “ Record ”
(Part TT, Chapter XXIII). My account of the publication of the
first of these works, the Myodaires, is based upon an apparently
forgotten and most interesting document, the Report on Rob.-Des-
voidy's manuscript, drawn up by the Committee of the Academy of
Sciences in Paris in 1826, and signed by Latreille , Rumeril , Blain-
ville, and Cuvier , the latter as Perpetual Secretary of the Academy
at that time.

Lately, I have published the following three critical papers : —

(1) Notiz liber die Erstlingsarbeit Dumdril’s, etc., in the Verh.
zool.-bot. Gresellsch ., Wien, 1900, p. 450-451, 166 of my “ List.”

(2) Notice on the synonymy of Anopheles maculipennis , in
the Ent. Monthly Mag., London, 1900, p. 281-282, 167 of my
“ List.”

(3) On the new nomenclature of the family Cecidomyiae, Ent.
Monthly Mag., London, 1901, p. 40-43, 168 of my “ List.”

I have attempted to justify the usefulness of such apparently
laborious and tedious critical, historical, and bibliographical work
in the following passage of my above-quoted paper : On the Terms
Calyptrata and Acalyptrata, 157 (1897) : “ A celebrated French
painter, I believe it was Ingres , used to say : ‘ Le dessin est la
probity de Part.’ So it may be said : ‘ Literature is probity in
science.’ If during the last six or seven years I have spent a con¬
siderable amount of time in tedious researches in entomological
literature, I had some reason for considering such researches as my
special duty. I have the advantage of possessing a rather complete
dipterological library, over the contents of which, by dint of indexes,
extracts, and cross-references, I have acquired a certain (although
still very insufficient) mastery. Another advantage which I enjoy
consists in an almost absolute freedom in the disposal of my time.
Under such favorable circumstances, it is much easier for me than
it would be for others to fulfil some duties of drudgery, indispen¬
sable, among the deluge of literature, for maintaining a decent level
of scientific probity. And I believe that my labor is not lost, so
long as I am helping others to maintain that level.”

13

WORK IN EUROPE

During the last twelve years, many investigations were begun
by me in different directions, and inchoate papers kept back for the
sake of emendation, when ill-health, the result of overwork, inter¬
fering with my projects, reminded me of the necessity of bringing
my entomological career to an appropriate conclusion. This con¬
clusion I offer in the present “ Record,” and in the commen¬
tated “ List ” of my writings ready for publication. My successive
papers on the so-called Oxen-born bees of the Ancients ( Bugonia ,
133, 142, 147 (1893-1895)), although they concern folk-lore, phil¬
ology, and even theology, rather than entomology, have been
included in the “ List,” because they contain a history of the geo¬
graphical distribution and of the very remarkable wanderings of a
common dipteron, Eristalis tenar, the drone-fly.

The historical and critical paragraphs which I have introduced
in this “ Record ” will be accepted, I hope, as a useful contribution
to the history of dipterology. Criticism has always been distaste¬
ful to me on account of the personal animus which is almost un¬
avoidably connected with it. In rare instances only have I published
criticisms, or rejoinders, on the spur of the moment. In a most
provoking case, when Professor Brauer published his “ Offenes
Schreiben, als Antwort auf Herrn Baron Osten-Sacken’s Critical
R eview etc. (1883), which was nothing but an unjust and undig¬
nified effervescence against me, I did not make use of an excellent
occasion for a retort, which an egregious error in that pamphlet
offered me. I waited for fourteen years, but then the pointing
out of that lapsus became unavoidable ( Berl . Ent. Zeit ., 1897,
p. 148-149 ; 162 (1897)). Many criticisms, which I have kept in
petto for years, have found their place in this “ Record ” as a mere
matter of history. Entomological literature would become intoler¬
able if it were considered every one’s duty to criticize and contradict
in print the many errors which continually rise to the surface. But
I hold it as useful that authors, who have some right to believe
themselves competent, should engage occasionally in the work of
purifying the literature of their domain. If such a rule were gen¬
erally adopted, superficial writers would be more mindful of the
Russian proverb : “ Whatever is written with the pen , cannot be hewn
out with the axeC And the conviction that, sooner or later, justice

WORK IN EUROPE

19

must be done, would act as an efficient check upon many useless
publications.

An historical account of a branch of science is not complete
without some characterization of the workers who have been active
in it. I have therefore attempted to introduce into my account
characterizations of entomologists in regard to their qualification
for scientific work — in the measure, of course, of my capacity.
Drawing portraits means introducing the psychological element
into history. Talent is a gift of nature, and does not, for that reason,
constitute in itself a merit ; the merit lies in the character which
makes talent fruitful. The duty of a fair critic is to sum up the
scientific progress resulting from the action of a given character
upon a given talent.

The beginnings of a worker in science are often symptomatic of
his future work. The celebrated contemporary Dutch painter
Joseph Israels is reported to have said about beginners in art : “ The
born artist places his ideal so high, that he never imagines he has
reached it. A beginner who is satisfied with his work arrives at
nothing.” 1 The same is true of science, and there are many in¬
stances of entomologists who, with a decided talent, have been led
astray by conceit and ambition. This “ Rule of Beginnings ,” as I
would .call it, is in most cases infallible.

What is needed in entomology, as well as in every other branch
of science, is co-operation among honest workers ; and an effective
co-operation is impossible without a mutual recognition and appre¬
ciation of character. “ As we are, so we associate. The good,
by affinity, seek the good ; the vile, by affinity, seek the vile ”
(Emerson, Divinity College Address, 1838).

It will be noticed that in exercising the duties of criticism I
have been particularly careful to render justice to meritorious
authors who have been misunderstood and decried through the
malevolence,2 or neglected through the carelessness, of their con¬
temporaries and successors. As such, I would especially mention

1 This passage is borrowed from an article about the painter Israels in the
Frankfurter Zeitung, February 11, 1897.

2 “Expressions malveillantes.” Rob.-Desvoidy, Ann. Soc. Ent. France, 1840,
p. 351.

20

WORK IN EUROPE

Rob.-Besvoidy, Rondani , Zeller , Schiner , and also, in a certain
measure, Holiday.

I could not omit giving an account of my controversies with
Professor Brauer ; but, avoiding useless detail, I have introduced
all the references necessary for a critical study of them in the future.
It is an historical account sine ira et studio. In fact, it will
be seen that, in most instances, Brauer is made to be his own
critic by a mere verbal reproduction and juxtaposition of his own
utterances.

It has been an equally distasteful task for me to point out my
friend Loew's persistent and systematic disregard of his brother
dipterologists ; it constituted a dark and to me an almost inex¬
plicable feature of his character. The only secret motive of this
idiosyncrasy that I can surmise is the consciousness of Loew that
Nature had formed him for something better than describing Dip-
tera, which was probably true. But that is not a sufficient excuse
for the eccentric treatment which Loew was in the habit of
dealing out to dipterologists like Zetterstedt , Winnertz, Rondani ,
Scliiner , and myself. The facts are given in Part II of this
“ Record,” for Zetterstedt , in Chapter XVIII ; for Winnertz, in
Chapter VI ; for Rondani , in Chapter XIX ; for Schiner, in Chap¬
ter XXI ; and for myself, in Chapter II, an account of Loew’s
treatment of my Monograph of the Tipulidae brevipalpi, and in
Chapter XII, a general account of my co-operation with Loew, and
of his sudden rupture of it in 1875. Even Holiday , Loew’s most
intimate correspondent, was on more than one occasion slighted by
him, as will be shown in my account of their relations (in Part II,
Chapter VIII, Holiday and Loeiv').

In my personal intercourse with Loew, I used to express to him
very frankly my disapproval of his treatment of some authors. He
received such reproaches with pleasant raillery, and passed to other
subjects of conversation. On one occasion Loew acknowledged to
me with remarkable candor his propensity to jealousy. I had bred
several new species of North American Trypetae from galls, and
intended to publish an account of them with illustrations, but I
deemed it prudent to ascertain Loew’s opinion beforehand on this
project. He answered (March, 1862) : “ You ask me in your letter

WORK IN EUROPE

21

whether it would be agreeable to me if you published descriptions
of several Noitli American Trypetae. Of course it would be unbe¬
coming for me, in such a case, to propose any conditions to you.
But your frank question I answer with an equally frank confession
of a foible of mine, that, in regard to this particular family, I am
a little jealous of the publications of others. Besides, we might
easily come into conflict in our publications, as I have again, just
now, described nine North American species.” 1

This last pretext was of course futile, but Loew had given, a
short time before (between 1858 and 1862), a striking illustration
of his jealousy concerning Trypetae in his extraordinary behavior
towards Schiner on the occasion of the publication of the volume:
“ Die europaischen Bohrfliegen ( Trypetidae ).” The details of this
incident, reproduced in Part II, Chapter XXI, already quoted
above, show to what incredible extremes Loew’s “ foible ” could
provoke him.

Jealousy among the passions has a higher standing than envy.
Jealousy presupposes possession ; envy on the contrary betrays the
want of it. Loew had every reason to be proud of his possession.
Envious people (and especially envious entomologists) generally
have but little to show.

In regard to Loew I state here once for all that, while condemn¬
ing his injustice in the strongest terms, I do not mean to impugn
his personal character as a man of truth and honor. Loew, without
any question, was a very superior man, far superior to me in natural
ability , as well as in learning. His colossal labors stand for him ;
what I have done has been to place his work in a better light, and
to give it a more distinct definition, which was due to history. But
I have treated Loew’s unceremoniousness towards his colleagues
with an equal unceremoniousness. If I, as a younger entomologi¬
cal colleague of his, represent him now as I knew him as a dipter-

1 “ Sie fragen mich in Ilirem Briefe, ob es mir lieb ware, wenn Sie etliche N. Amer.
Trypeten beschrieben. Es versteht sieli dass es mir nicht zukommt Ilmen in dieser
Beziehung je eine Bedingung zu maclien. Doch will ich Ilmen auf die offene Frage
ebenso offen meine Schwache bekennen, dass ich gerade in dieser Familie auf die
Publicationen anderer etwas neidisrher Natur bin. Audi kdnnten wir in unseren
Publicationen leicht zusammentreffen, da ich bereits wieder neun N. Amer. Arten
beschrieben habe.”

22

WORK IN EUROPE

ologist, with the defects of his character and the palpable limitations
of his entomological talent , I mean to render him a better service
than I should by feeble attempts at concealment and attenuation.
After twenty-nine years of relations with him, I possess in his
voluminous correspondence a source of information which enables
me to accomplish this task better than anybody else, and I am con¬
vinced that I have fulfilled it with impartiality.

The greatest difficulty, however, which I have had to overcome
is that of speaking of myself. In a personal record like the present
it is not easy to avoid the semblance of egotism. But I feel that,
after the lapse of nearly half a century (for the beginning of my
entomological career dates as far back as that), I have some right
to look upon my former self as upon a different person. Not hav¬
ing had any training as a professional zoologist, I have always con¬
sidered myself a mere dilettante , and as such have always avoided
going beyond my depth. My only purpose in working was to
satisfy a natural wish to turn to some account my moderate abili¬
ties, to which fate had originally given a different, and to me dis¬
tasteful, direction. Sir M. Grant Luff (in an article on the Cretan
question, Contemporary Review , April, 1897) says: “I once intro¬
duced an eminent Englishman to Jules Simon as a politician and
an entomologist. ‘ La politique ,’ was the reply, ‘ Jest un peu de
V entomologies and so it is.” When I found myself figuring in
both capacities (between 1871 and 1873), I gave up politics for
entomology, and have never regretted it since.

Ed. Perris wrote to Mulsant in the ominous year 1848: “La republique des
lettres et le sooialisme des plantes sont les seuls auxquels je m’attache, et plus je
m’aperfois que les homines ne valent pas grand’ehose, plus je me raccroche aux
plantes et aux betes, aux betes surtout, si dociles h leur instinct, si fldeles a leur
destinee. — Les gouvernements changent, mes occupations se multiplient ; mes
gouts ne se modifient pas. . . . .Te me trouve parfaitement bien d’echapper aux
agitations dont les evenements politiques semblent avoir fait une necessite a
la plupart des homines.” (Quoted by Laboulbene, in his obituary of E. Perris,
in the Ann. Soc. Ent. France, 1879, p. 375.)

I can say that in my new career which I embraced seriously
rather late in life (in 1877, at the age of nearly fifty) I have done
my best, and have succeeded sufficiently to satisfy my conscience.
Honest criticism, tending to amend, or even to reverse, any of the

WORK IN EUROrE

23

dicta given forth by me, will give me pleasure, as showing progress
in the cause of truth which I have always striven to serve. Of one
peculiarity of my icork I feel certain: the best part of it is that
which has assisted and stimulated the ivork of others , and I am
conscious at the same time that that part of my work is the largest.
This will, I trust, suffice to condone all the faults which I may
have committed. I feel nevertheless impelled to introduce here, in
extenuation of my shortcomings, a brief account of the difficulties
I have had to contend with besides my absolute want of training as
a professional zoologist, and my imperfect knowledge of the Eng¬
lish language. I have never had the good fortune to reside for any
sufficient length of time in a place in which, or within a reasonable
distance of which, there was a large dipterological collection. In
St. Petersburg, in my time (that is, before 1856), there was no
dipterological collection, public or private, to guide my first steps.
The museum of the Academy of Sciences possessed a valuable but
small set of Diptera labelled by Meigen, and that was all. In the
United States, some remains of Say’s and Harris’s types were
preserved in Boston ; there was no collection either in Washington
or in New York, the places in which I resided most of my time
between 1856 and 1871. Thus it happened that my first mono¬
graph of the Tipulidae brevipalpi (1859) was based upon a collection
formed, with very few exceptions, by myself. My further studies
were supported by abundant and most liberal contributions from all
sides, but for comparison and guidance I had nothing to rely upon
but the hasty notes gathered in European museums during my
temporary absences from America. Finally, in Heidelberg, where
I settled after having left all my collections in the United States,
and where I made the attempt to extend my studies to the Diptera
of all the world, I had to rely for my instruction, in addition to the
laborious and ungrateful study of a voluminous and generally unsat¬
isfactory literature, upon rather scanty materials which were only
the very incomplete collection of European Diptera which I had ac¬
quired from Zeller, and the collections of exotic Diptera which, at
different times, had been confided to me for the purpose of descrip¬
tion. For more information I had again to rely upon fugitive visits
to distant museums (principally in London, Oxford, Berlin, and

24

WORK IN EUROPE

Vienna). On such occasions I took notes, as well as I could, and,
as I but seldom carried specimens for comparison with me, I had
most of the time to rely on my memory. As the last years of my
entomological career were principally devoted to generalizations
tending to improve the System, it is painful for me now to reflect
how much I lost by such isolation and how much more completely
my work would have succeeded, if I had been able to illustrate it
by numerous examples founded upon the study of exotic forms in
museums within easier reach !

The views on science and scientific work in general to which I
have adhered during my lifetime have been expressed, more than
sixty years ago, by a much more eloquent voice than mine. On
December 29, 1835, Karl Ernst von Baer, whom I feel honored to
recall as a patron and a friend, pronounced an oration before the
Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, the subject of which was :
“Blicke auf die Entwickelung der Wissenschaft ” (“Views on the
Development of Science”). I cannot do better than close this
“ Introduction ” with a passage from that oration.1

“ If I presume to beg your attention a little longer, it is that we
may consider a greater subject, the wonderful Pantheon of Science
itself, to which we will now revert. The Builder of this edifice,
who tests all the stones before putting them together, so that the
building shall not totter, is Criticism, — but he is an ever-living
Builder, whose power and insight grow with his work. As to the
result, therefore, let us be unconcerned ! The individual workman
must break each stone out of the quarry, and then so fashion it as
to fit it for the place intended for it. To no one is it granted to
complete any very large portion of this edifice single-handed.

‘ Genius if by that is implied irresponsibility (‘ Ungebundenheit ’),
has long since lost its credit in the domain of Science. It had
better try its luck in the world of Poetry ! In the domain of
Science, talent alone, coupled with diligence and the power of self-

1 The original German text of the passage will be found in my paper : “ Zur
Geschichte der Brustgrate, etc., nebst einer Krinnerung an Karl Ernst von Baer ” in the
Berl Ent. Zeit., 1893, p. 373, No. 135 of my “ List.” The whole “ Oration” has been
reprinted in Vol. I, p. 75-1G0, of the collection of miscellaneous publications of
Baer, published under the general heading : “ lieden gehalten in wissenschaftltchen
Versammlungen,” etc., in three volumes, St. Petersburg, 1864-1873.

RISE OF DIPTERA IN PUBLIC ESTIMATION

25

control, is of any value. With the poetic temperament a man may
earlier grasp the future problems of Science, but the more he con¬
trives to suppress the Poet within him the more successfully will
he labor on the edifice itself, however fascinating it may be to
soar to those heights for the future attainment of which he ought
perhaps to be working on the lowest rung of the ladder.”

C. R. OSTEN SACKED.

Heidelberg, Bunsen Str. 8.

January 30, 1901.

NOTE ON THE RISE OF THE ORDER DIPTERA IN PUBLIC
ESTIMATION DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

Diptera during the past century have gradually risen in public
estimation, especially among men of science. The superiority of
their organization has been recognized by systematists. Observers
of living specimens have noticed peculiarities in their behavior
which prove a higher development of their faculties than of those
of other orders.

Diptera, more than all other insects, show a distinct love of
freedom , while Ilymenoptera, with all their perfections, betray drill.
Owing to their organization Diptera have more control over their
motions than any other insects, in consequence of which there is
a remarkable stamp of individuality in their actions. They can
suddenly arrest their flight and poise in the air ; they can not only
swarm, but dance in cadence, or gambol in the air in the most extra¬
ordinary manner. It is principally the males who dance, play, and
frolic together; during courtship they perform most ludicrous an¬
tics. Schiller (“ Aesthetische Briefe ”) said : “ The animal, the child,
as well as man, play : the sense of strength and the higher sense of
freedom derived from strength give rise to the joy of playing.”

At Trenton Falls, N. Y., I remember watching several male Dolichopods exe¬
cuting a ludicrous cancan on the stony ground along the stream. The species was
called by Loew Tachytrechus moechus (“ Monographs North American Diptera,”
II, p. 112, “ Trenton Falls, 0. S.”).

The following passages, borrowed from the works of different
naturalists, have reference to the change of public opinion about

26

RISE OF DIPTERA IN PUBLIC ESTIMATION

Diptera alluded to above. Oken (quoted b}’’ Zeller , Isis, 1840,
p. 10) called them “ the beggars among Insects, living in dirt.”

Kirby and Spence , “ Introduction ” (1826), Yol. IV, p. 381, say:
“ While the last \Hymenoptera , including the honey-bee], on account
of their wonderful economy and the benefits which by them Provi¬
dence confers upon mankind, have been justly regarded as the
princes of the winged insect world, — the former [ Diptera , or two¬
winged insects], when we consider the filthy and disgusting habits
of their grubs, and the annoyance, both from their numbers and
incessant assaults, of them, in their fly-state, may very properly be
considered as its canaille .”

Sixty years later B. T. Loivne, in his “ Anatomy of the Blow-fly ”
(1890, p. 25-27), expresses himself very differently.

“ The blow-flies belong to the family Muscidae, one of the most
highly specialized groups of the Diptera, the most highly specialized
order of the class Insecta.” “ Just as all discussion would be futile
as to whether a bird or a mammal is the higher type, so it is useless
to consider whether the Diptera or the Hymenoptera have the
higher organization ; but there can be no question as to which of
these orders departs most from the more generalized form. The
Diptera are far more remarkable in their developmental history,
and in the modification of structure which they present in the adult
or imago form. In this relation the strong tendency of many to
produce their young alive, and the fact that some have a capacious
matrix, or uterus, in which the larvae are hatched, or even attain
the pupa form, before birth, is not without interest, presenting as it
does some analogy with the viviparous character of the mammalia
amongst vertebrates — whilst the nest-building instincts are more
manifest in Hymenoptera and in birds. It is true that the flies,
and more especially the heavy forms, with a comparatively tardy
flight, like the blow-fly, have been regarded as ‘stupid ’ — Sprengel
called them ‘ die dununen Fliegen ’ — and do not excite our sym¬
pathy and curiosity to the same extent as the social Hymenoptera;
but it is impossible to judge of the intellectual functions of an
insect. The manner in which the blow-flies and their near allies,
the house-flies, have made themselves at home with man, speaks
for their power of adapting themselves to new and varied condi-

RISE OF DIPTERA IX PUBLIC ESTIMATION

27

tions. They are cunning, wary, and easily alarmed, and except
when benumbed with cold or heavy with eggs, know well how to
avoid danger. They appear to me far more clever in this respect
than the bees and wasps.” I borrow this remarkable passage of
Mr. Lowne from Mr. C. H. Tyler Townsend’s paper in the Cana¬
dian Entomologist , 1893, Yol. XXY, p. 135.

PART SECOND

TWENTY-FOUR CHAPTERS ON HISTORICAL, BIO¬
GRAPHICAL, CRITICAL, AND PURELY ENTO¬
MOLOGICAL SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH MY
WORK

PREFACE

Since the publication (1901) of the Prospectus of my “ Record,”
I have changed my original plan of intercalating “ Chapters ” on
different subjects between the items of the “ List ” of my papers.
It occurred to me that, as my “ Chapters ” contain a great deal
of new historical, biographical, and critical matter of immediate
interest, independent of the “ List,” it would be as well to publish
them at once, and in a connected form. The number of “ Chapters ”
has been now reduced to twenty-four. This will thus form the
second part of my “ Record.”

The third part, the “ List ” itself, being already prepared in
manuscript, contains matter enough for publication, even if I
should be no more present to superintend it.

As my dipterological career has been intimately connected with
that of Loew during the greater part of his lifetime, a consider¬
able proportion of the “ Chapters ” has been devoted to him.
They are both biographical and critical, and their contents have
been foreshadowed on pages 19 to 22 of my “ Introduction.” The
concluding passage on p. 21 may be reproduced here, as summing
up the scope of the “ Chapters ” concerning Loew : “ If I, as a
younger entomological colleague of his, represent him now as I
knew him as a dipterologist, with the defects of his character
and the palpable limitations of his entomological talent , I mean
tn render him a better service than I should by feeble attempts

THE BEGINNINGS OF MY RELATIONS WITH LOEW

29

at concealment and attenuation. After twenty-nine years of rela¬
tions with him, I possess in his voluminous correspondence a
source of information which enables me to accomplish this task
better than anybody else, and I am convinced that I have fulfilled
it with impartiality.” C. II. O. S.

I ON THE BEGINNINGS OF MY RELATIONS WITH LOEW, WITH
SOME REMARKS ON THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF OUR
CORRESPONDENCE

My correspondence with Loew began as early as 1850 or 1851,
when I was still living in St. Petersburg, but I have not preserved
his letters of that time. I sent him a Limnobia which I had dis¬
covered near St. Petersburg, and which he described as L. im-
perialis, sp. n. It proved afterwards to be the long-lost Tipula
annulata Linn6 (compare 2, 1857). The tone of Loew’s letters to
me not having been encouraging, the correspondence was not con¬
tinued. In 1856, Loew heard from Dr. Ilagen of my appointment
as Secretary of the Legation in Washington, whereupon he suddenly
displayed the greatest eagerness to renew our correspondence. He
wrote me (Meseritz, April 11, 1856) a most urgent letter, express¬
ing the hope that I would send him American Diptera, and com¬
plaining of his isolation, principally caused by his quarrel with Dr.
C. A. Dohrn, President of the Stettin Entomological Society, who,
as Loew contended, “ had systematically cut off all the sources of
supply of material for work, which he formerly received through
the medium of the Society.” Loew, on that occasion, sent me his
recently published paper on Bombylius (“ Neue Beitriige,” 1855) and
concluded his letter with this characteristic flourish : “ It is a pleas¬
ant feeling for me to think that, during the probably tedious Atlantic
passage, or perhaps even on American soil, you will cast a glance
on the lines of my composition, and recall my request that }rou
should be for me a Count von Hoffmannsegg, while, in truth, I am
not immodest enough to compare myself with Master Meigen.” 1

1 “ Es ist mir ein gar angenehmes Gefiihl zu denken, dass vielleicht auf der doch
etwas langweiligen Seereise, oder gar auf amerikanischem Boden, Ilir Bliek einmal
auf die von mir verfassten Zeilen fallen und Sie daran erinnern kdnnte, dass ich Sie

30

THE BEGINNINGS OF MY RELATIONS WITH LOEW

More than two years passed after this letter, during which I
heard nothing from Loew, although I had written him several times,
and had sent him a first consignment of Diptera, as well as a copy
of my Catalogue of North American Diptera, which I had pub¬
lished in the mean time. The solution of this mystery came in a
letter, dated from Meseritz, October 1, 1858. Loew, probably in
consequence of some vague association in his mind between the
United States and the Declaration of Independence, had directed
his letters to the Russian Legation in Philadelphia, without hav¬
ing noticed that my letters were always dated from Washington.
After a long interval the letters were returned to him by the Post
Office, and he had the mortification of sending them back to me
with a doleful explanation.

In my “ Introduction,” p. 4, I said : “ After a rather long,
gwase-tentative correspondence, during the first years of my resi¬
dence in America, about the mode and conditions of our proposed
co-operation, we came to the following agreement,” etc. The
nature of this agreement, as well as its final result for the benefit
of American dipterology, having been explained in the “ Introduc¬
tion,” I shall confine myself here to some particulars concerning
my epistolary intercourse with Loew.

First of all, I feel bound to acknowledge Loew’s conscientious¬
ness and painstaking accuracy in rendering me an account of all
the successive consignments of Diptera which lie received from me.
The species were not only exactly enumerated, but almost every
one of them separately discussed. When a species could be recog¬
nized among published descriptions, the probability of its exact
determination was discussed ; new, or probably new, species were
noticed as such.

This mode of treatment gave rise to an abundant and mutually
useful interchange of ideas. That I was not successful in my
attempts to come to an understanding with Loew about the ter¬
minology of the organs of Diptera, will be shown when I come to

gebeten habe, mir ein Graf von Hoffmannsegg zu sein, wobei ich mieh mit Meister
Meigen vergleicben zu wollen, wahrhaftig nicht unbescheiden genug bin.” — Count
Hoffmannsegg (l 7Gb- 184!)), a Saxon nobleman and naturalist, sent Meigen a collection
of Diptera from Portugal, but did not publish concerning it himself.

%+ ^TTu,lrn Vcr^ocm u,S> fifed** , if'rri -V 7f. \U><

■Xi \Utu U+Tcn. %<• TtJa Atetvra U*S HficStn , i>»m 3? 7/. &M,a ...

r-jT,,, V,,,„ £.^k,. I,,,—, pv*— *» l).r,..nraV».

iiJfc

f ^Jylt-

. , ,., ikTitar .-'•ijlif, liAr u*(.<r2tk. !

ij<j<(mul/)»Mr^Auti(j.. if •/* rXv^iTlty} ,i„.

>f<»*** J'+T,'4titL* t r i^Lt 'J, >)aVuiiiiMV<Jri?, U't/i

*(< ry/o^v^Vii iii/tikfuif c^*»

'miar^ - (Xt»l~. rt l)faafCM A*i${n

n«»f.> /«uj, X/TVtaf mJoUC. »**»i II.) »*iW r\ij mady-

llil+Ttn >*uA)f*n ^jurr. M«> j.mt«»i« ftarr iniui *>i 3cr UnT^r

vl<i4<M . - c^utK i'<<i {fciuAjtti v ■}*!

At * tAr }*clif/‘54 iMuf^uixv t Vatu 1 iaTa4ipa*6«*ng Oj»jui('y w *“ ‘

/**n*«* CL*t.r,{\*r *^.i«.-4£|-; - i'c »*n £ iJ4r«y»i *<»7.n Lyl~'j~ »*i c»jvi » Ht^r
"7<*-f*£0«n Iff), '*ii ('ll'"! >\lr« •»•.<>» aV «*MvT w«//r«r JuJfK^ljT

V? pUt+neftx

fl.rM. 7, maNJ

r,ef .t^v0 r*»*> tnltijtKJUk# tninxi^irn rtininf w-fJi'n >>*♦»» U.)tilth

^ c^vi o<rr> | Tan fliftKUIITt 3»«" «•«»(.« ■*.» nyT.i i"«r < . nt*i Ju*\K»lx T^na-T y» a*® jf W*4i uJofU v»t»-kan*T4ir*i inf /. ^>i«a

j f( ^T<*i *“i m * j^Te*' <Utrtl' iuXT< Jfr iH<rTi*i^nn^i'ael|y Joltiwn iPunfl 4i*4»/«. /4*U , n ,vr fim lUainittrutf

• Hm/u <V

7v}*

VIS®**-

< r /u,r 'J, J

./ * (ttfcitn't- .

^ it •firT/* r\ , — Vati •*i'cs'tft
a.rj. /■iluAtii ft G.yfV.nf nYy)^ -t»r/irV<lt »M.V A«/ ,

»**<** | f*V 'Jfrrtn c’V)# ,, . m ’**',«>/#•

'>•'£*** ««*•**»

aSr •*"«; >iJVl S«*<i4... *../ .../

anj itm .►© r-

i-.Cr

ucj- < r il <» ««- ?aV 1W*<*

TiijUitm'ln i'3«»vrirr4i /itMnu
.T, ,r i t r ^ V ( r /l’rt i r<-4. a iVm

itM,njiytJc X'loU

{ iilif r t >«

J«*K 1»»V (*Uh#
Cyf«U^yx,U' ,<

pnA/^Vk^Cr f+i’rinn tunt^

_ _ _ . ^ . ^

k» Ui .4,,^ ?«r r \1trtei0ft (ftjf f' •* l*i* «rw'44iu.*i(i ««/<■' » ^4

^n.uhVrJii^h i)ff>Kitmmf,i^( fft r r Uy+iK*r Ji»i

t*\tsr4 it i(’m ; f ^ u<rri)en 4*f^t T

- - . - - - ■ ... - - - .-4l*.»-tf et

urtiiiHtKrUdi _ . '

^V'C-r«'*‘ Iltn'ifilj VtTtxrnocrt ret .(l^f»rt.>nv»f<l"/''‘1*tv»r\» i*o»\ J. fid V t't n-f unt)

Wf r

vr.itrij.

v*vM'r»cwn;^.r (4 1 n^4 1 n ,*O0tm «n>Kf *iafh ’jitr r n II •' 6« ^»V .JTi >u4v4# fojltth f tl a

4l«^a 45*V«<;<3*/ Wc« V^njin »rt»i'n*f '4ij»l4ini«»n,Surdift*lf tii'dvf/aijMiiwjf- ^jJaWenxJi'i ^

Va *.*vnT airXix'^liTt 'ill' *i.ri/»4« n'*4* t»<i / l Juitt *t « / " ,<^1 4 tlt«*\4.*Hv /tin <**n ?l«n

trirliff wi>*» y<0t«.c?V/v,,< \ l^U t furMiiiAtu Cl^r<x«Vra4*fVt*<»w?ef' »#1>- p« JUl.^q ,iUtlt4vc 7l»rf r »*■ V /r^„Tu- ' ' '■".'

... r ». _A _ r.flZ'a _ — <ar ^f..- ,v' Ht.. f. _ // ....I rK- .1 ^ ... • /.

dmtriKrt noahVmm fyi.^a Tift r U'+'Ktr .«*i Pai7*Jog< V'ar r/*,'prt r»r,^,i i * ; . , „ m. ^ ' '

yH‘£,.l€ »>"*)' |V*» ti.VKt v< s*vt>W««l()en ;,^(fL /-/4M r *•“

»tu.t JtP/a/Aftv Jt+uitritfr If y ••»•*— a*.. i>. .. I .fL . >n ...

i.tm

itfn i»»*i i'jT-* «» - JtwKtn .jtJfrnJ . tf\(il< f

M*‘v

u'm U'uJ'l ‘

fi<4!4Hf«fSufAu*jj naljf.
•ipttu/I. cA irtitnrlrtti I ,'(Aa .

^.) fi.'.-Tipr/ n»n./f .

. jji. # (• ) rtxtay"-.* i r jittffy.

C ^Uara.' tf pu.apr.r avia’outV/ tfk

l^r>q. iU. %<*n . —

U.'ir, ) h»r»f ^ifTr»}^

■f.) |>nUi^u nav./fi., 5.)

Jf* 4 rT

•j.) |.lumi>ra /<>a-).

■>u*. I . *7cT. i|a»>fi*inf <diiJ d • Navi/<'«

U*wr>tsi,-ttm*r*ii>*4' pefr.’a'if VuAfuj U»(J< /♦T»*ef r *TiV**kxJ i j

JVr«naf«P* ^Ia»>wc(.if ^ffaJ( //>ir./n7.3**’^ W'l/.HS.

Jffr filflt'U* j.<^i(V/Tl. I ,'cA < r iK.J.a ( tirU^fr iJ lift /ci\ a a^« rn^,<iatA «T\r»ri Wn )i,-,uhrii yttrt a a4< ij e. <4 -X n.'/y'rr ^>uaT?r.m^ *1 1 c^if va*4rrTa.r

k<tia>ifflafl «# t.#«t c>« t- »•<* iaT«-o<*f' ltT,f^fTyv in nj f Or* Iff J.alataTf ^4ri^«a4^/(/ntr m’i*f»r JeuTlith lOjqt/chnitttri ,ut • w'<j Jirrjft f . _

ff^«^.V»»r.<a»5 ,••».. r,,4-rr t /Van •)• "•‘*^, *«« i‘ni pfit.'rU ftUVUtfritmt utiri nu,4ii >^rn h.’n m, rfC/.V;a Sthtniiitr : j^p.-oT/ ■» an tVai^/airun^f /.«JcT aY* •«■ Ifrrulick

"'o^'TrT^‘^1 "ojajar^l.fK r o^-n-yua’nil.t. WW« r u,ii>wr^tts.-n pK. ..'t» »r<itr»r. -*/\« m.a'U ,rJ W<a u»«7l <a*- ;

CafljJwa.J#*- t . liAK» J»U. a. »^r . :«v. o, ^lo »«y rt-‘ “ .i> (<t/f /(A. a 4 tra .<,■ .a»4fr- Tin WcnaliVA . . ft,'. A l-rfTa.ltt! JofcrJB f 'C

•a|«f««an ili*T|«^/T.TaV , k Cwlill*

Jttl.Sat 'j1, 9<*>V
.'.rP.Wa/a- • •'

•caVAr./w Ijr *Ui f‘(iv f i'i'a T lX / ^. , / <,Xvt\o u'chf na/h ^r.T,

^'»'e7y’^ dujXr \cr *<:z r^Jr.-r- .A

,V lV Jrt'Mmt.i f t/u.vJ« a'Ji'V tW jQ q(.-,

^chafl r-n^ ^..rU*Tt„uU2~ HiJitjXn^a.JthL, GJ ^

«A r T fca/Tifa^Ta n

^ . ^ *r TTdft. Ti^ytmUrk uriitMAU Int/Ta,: Ut., >iia*.'4*rSniKi

»v* a/M*aanliii «« ,, JetTf nr<\*Ztj <■. at« 3,«-^ Arauar,/ /»*! Jki ^ .ai/f4a n , fff»l • + f"4aU( H*1 1 rLr»Mt nr -tnn+fl (nir . etui Jrv* *4 **’ _ .

nrarwV »n^ «tf«4t «t'«i aj(AH^« t«>.r -^tWtrS unlit It rr'Jli^ .'htiv.l'fdnnlich^ttb 'iafj,t\ aV< J, lift nan ,,.«r >-.«/« r

Vcj GirHan r «a«ig Duller riO rv«,v J L« /*< ,'t)cr* (pT^Tc** '7x«/j'gA."«a>a C '4»»rKtar4i<Jt7aAnjjr^t\f\»Hi^T«p»\4if nKrl <Tu/(k<f r UriTirffitf rhit/.

(nnQ.f, n l^.i.Mr'ir n 'A — / r . .. 1 Vi.T. . 1 .TLa* ^ L.. .‘a . \ ,7 ... I /.. _ ...I "S t I . J .1. _ ? ... .TT. t >. 1 1 ... 1 t

xjdiVjTrraArt, i^ri^ti,

nyff/t r _ ..._„.

t fifttotnltn I* r n tf i y, icfiXhtil .'

^ - *■- | ' *- rt/n ATurjfh unJmjf

^ ,f1 ' Ju’j" qany n «Tkg,t,ni lOt^on. mrt/r,Q ^ilifpl,f tf ^^/tckTRSeSu^k (>a. y ,y M(qm U#rA

nit 1 ‘ " ‘ 9""" 1,3 Hh ’:'U K '* '* ‘ shtfstlrt ..v/'-er rV f >u Ut ^,t7^La(yilc ,ln^iU iu',J,n qu,riX-Z, r UTy^r ^rJr^T. - l^rol,

“ A *'.’ 3X^ AL*lSt,k' -tV.O-- J laocfVrnrTl-OraiNa- SArlonimpT.^ TMinic7< f 4i»Mr1»l»if a. *mrlu'n . frt^TtiUi fcfunnaa. fmaa. t.., p o .» f f. ».,LT

fu*L

'f'e/fti

. > . ,r ^ ,'w. j .,‘.r . j-

t a « 4^ ' »« n • ti :j ytkr of. . , , "J U ,{«jyt rjft

ir- '.'t‘ ^ r,l.at.^,H.^p^,.L'/3 t. V i '■ ' fX'y' - - i *cff*t*j ifl nhtWtr

'kVa JIT. /It1* r " °^r ^r,iu'^f'r^/— •‘»--4flwan> v'ar^araa, ihjilt ..•, ati, T/Jaoiar jcn H&r&un tf,yTlT.U't(.'4it <i,x/.-', n,g ...Daa alaa... n >1 <)u ntirfr* 5faanxfr .1 /£(■<.,.••*. | a.raar u '•Jit/H't,

— 3.1, r^n- ^ Xf'rf.iJOo iaVa-aiair' /ORjf L'riitTnifUTTiU. 9<tinq Wt Al.'fur . « - )rt\ r /f/fa <\r jT.V-t/.-ro-f.a ^ auj,..r«r>>, , , n fer/iutif, hJ.in.r Knj

, . i* ',l / ’ J1-1* 'fj '.xJi'ffr? < rcr ilu.ii'iifK( »orl, ,ln KlfinU1 W*“naf uitar/yhjaf) WarKalim in’i^ ll*littiTt.uitr(r" Sdmti 'Ur ‘jan’ntr <>T n .r.aV« au^'nl,

VM^rvra, , ‘ '’!!*.* *""” /’,i‘C rAi^.art' ■. ?<a^K« laaju(hnaf.A« Aar*.. „ w, Uaumn Ot>t’rytU^J^r\Ura-tn,n^a,.afif nVha .C^at/f' ...,1>J r-' >- ^aii,l-Sun|,'J!/ia/

y ,?‘‘ ’■'" U«^iraif rmarr i?t» a^ca'fa >/«Jl.Vka .xuf.ji *'• •» xi'llf n ,.*<*<i ulina'i) a'/aiTj />aa-a‘li nuri.iJ.r 'f)ai i» b.iu>. u'.*a , O. i»»at / .Ja,j«»s "M rV^ayaT,, r <Ar

JuavUrt lnn1,f ay.u.*f),p «;«; na*Tt7'c»Var.j4;r. . 3./' JM» f ,>r<»X„li;rivla/*1, W« ,3l.-.-a«;r W,..(fcr a.. , . M V . . . y Saris, Z;.r Aa.S.^.ariaJo,

rn*k<-»+>* -)/.»al.4K .^il.>^w„ lTa„,0-iJ., lJT.kr.un '/.UU.n.-H'JU.r. ,^Ta- ,~ti JaaJdM.*,

iM.rnTittrTtn •''""'ix «nJ»r /p.T^c •5/^J.4v.f3*4i«^/-nhtaiJfn < r HjitUch *i*bffr r Sl.if ^r.tfT/J it* .a .a« miffrfxnnc rt ._r.*'M. k.P.an‘j)4«rK>«rHlnT«»l«i'fco*ri,TAAjJr_

xurn« ?^tt,'.aT.^A,.u\rn^«-A.Va^ ,. rJ* m i.Itin^^a Ju , a-V . «k r l*r ...a y . 1>* • • 4 J fcW ,r nf .VT^r HlnJ.rl.U uiU u.Llit I, l„tUr ?■ fca^HfP

..nD^Ur.»Mn4rt^..nKrr4,c«4.</fc»r^,(i<ht 3., /iJhcdtfJ,;f,„ra^,ty*tin.rXiii*!^.^^rf^rU.r +l*Ktn )~S*!S,nUttfStn ,*<+/ ffr )n[ n/.'.JtS ty^/r

<af4xX*,<V3**'' ?m«k4c art 3«« i,W»>,,l;ir..,...,r. rbroehtn* tr .#«(//„ .«a« c^T/r«kr. - rt »* J*n J'aht „ K« ( n ifo** .) , r CrJnJfrt.ii, mf„,'. u. r.wjn 1* ti, voi UtU'rSS.th!..!... jrfU

■ rH T, ml •'“’V" (at^fir«rv^T ».'«««. makrodar oiiuiaT I'.ivi ra , <*(f reh.Jt.ry 11 Ja < ..^a uairhiCt'llaxi a’#r /Vr /p.T^

»»(«■/*«« «’;Aa,"^< *^3ar UixTufttZM linynd<nrHtrKa ^t^ntixntT j'ynf pti uj*(, ri««(a rhtn /rf, ' '

♦,c^l;r/rUV»*ar rT>Jcr K»l4«r lamkn t*#r^>rArtn p^«^>ra<\'« Jlt^Tfr, .iJ.f1»,;«Har.|,rir»*a *Tn ^ria.

Thta AT p/ t/ua. ,' ,vr »>| a It r .J
<^.«r7a)t»'^r«>arfT^>.*# v»a-0ar ni.TIr

( uum.q.K.arOira,, Ttf iBlI*-»ia«i .’An/* ^r,, n J,,

U»iicn e’>it^<lbt >*IV la . 1 n<j .-Hi ?’<

t«>t -S*iarf<a-I«« "Vf A" ? mtiaP aj.Tr/pjf U f ..^,.,11 arh .j

/ajartfabltp . . J<r »l^*a« )*» ‘ »r3or«„ '.k T>r/,| p(t) 4u^.l r; Ict _ ...."J trawal .T*.'* •jri'mr nUtT^iit/cn Jrjptt* <,Uy„ nui *‘<t, U. rtT«Vn Jha*7> '<',X >. rt T r.u f cx-l/di .», r.

Thtiu ^ ^ rpa»W>< litTn jnHftUtix'dtr 1 1 Iv." fidunn , ,r / >n_.a k^> ^fija nHr A'u'l.aUa ,<‘,Vr<rKfcir *'l'+KtUt n ptti.

t >u i.afJi It sihr 'lala. fc« .«.h«o .\r /TV l|,«^» «ar,^n<1ty /•anm a « U;, rrtnit 'fopptiiUslu. q,Tr, A .aTA,-^ Kla.a.a 0.«rvx^*»- vT.hrfT^a# .w r m.Ttr ^ r r iJavl > #i<f ■

K.'wTctc q«<ra^<T .-jr.au*- ul a ta.q ^ckAr Jara.a.T. - f t^nk*«l lf(i> afcyCljr^., . fgpK,*a ) ■'- . ,*aa « . ‘

Cl-.M^KHna. UA.f«Wr.{-r,V >M;aJ|.H,a4T .y^k/an ,d«a.V4a 7>ufr >l+T « ^ ‘ “ - 'T. it*ni,Tctru^ I;u item tol U ,a.'a a.„Vryrp. .' Ja T ,V. i, ,-a*n

O .*« r , r VurThftir turthuSt^ «).U (vanna a a f C^UR ?u f rt t p*i .U.rlia r« ljaam.vX".n (aaJl.m |.np;«yl,/,k,.n (t..r« rf.ka».' atii o.VKrA^jugaAaTa . .aafil c .'alaHuMr

V, «r raVk* k,4j««i-xM<aP> ,“'*n v» a#4i Sja-r «U„,irhaaa l/rna /rr.p,Vr,yfi*n,vr »'OM JaT-nmAart rurrl oar^faa.kart rv«^.vr< . ,

. JaT. r»«Jl/3a> , «^t»./r». q.. - > / av>« f Trif fthorac* OityOltTiuS vatfa To jff foTa opY * /• , J’af* xiTimi#ru>n •.,«4*f tT.'rrey •.lartiirrrTirulvif

}i*a^ti*ffla|.Vk1Tvi«jr'. Jfa'irka «Tu'X <*.j aU.. r , t it tnUttiif o'nTTy«krtt /itiaaa r^*»i >| «rX on. ^aa^atWYin^e j'i.’a «(rTi((fa Itl.'Hli/'f ri'ffra* yaUr yc iamaxt ,ohnt (jlj rarj .( )Ui/Jiari ?.♦»» f •» * If r
aan^'Jcr a j cr. a <4^ ba.ui,,/ 7*4<‘*+i<^» « ^ • ^I'yTar*. jmtup*; ^.i^'aAa ra3a 'ft^<ri \t ieT,r\lf?irht*rrt tJtifftn /aAa' nvtnar i»a^f.-)ir (.raJ,...i r*aVi#r dii’fTf

mahf tk.rra'ajT.^lf 4at«' ?<n mti/Ttn aiajarn • "/a HI £ n gtfw^a# kjt.’a) K«.im Tdlanj ^a»|" i Ii-/ * yai'na a Ti»a rfi'tit niettV^tAtTlnh n.tf^ty.hnlUfrt c.ia^ wa'akJVrkr

yaiiTj .Va't y.Ihl.r l»o r*"!* »»>*raxn i'ar j)«ri< affc, y^aarT y.Aad* r*ia f yt mlai4» r,^la# aii’a kT / akr'3iVhTar/-(>auJa pj(,'tii«*- ‘Aak nttT/rTe (y*rfyrit( T'ay Jhtr.>*luT

n ra A>/ra«rxn3. (i*\t fcfaltl , -u>6«)/ tcfTjiu l«Tt ^LiatraTTuna -n'.' .a,./.'i*ar 4M*^2v ‘'aai Ju p^ujaJaM,), if: (*iflilTt Si /i<aiiffl -itmalaVTal f r^a'.f f nama fi liaf. rj ia't GaiVan /aftt,’.

xiarrr Ut*al rt»;xTc n«yV, « in* a.*.l,£fT*uA'T»af'in^fl.ri.t..''t>\llJdianflark,tTnJaLf .««.>/ Ii'.’h v.. ra a'4T, •« 'T,. nfe. r a. fffr K*i'>l«r mi’^rp m.‘ (Taj fi r i'a t’n . JVri.Jf/airfn ^a.ikoka'l fiuttrfi

,mU'f1a^a't^*tfoll|ir Cat »i.. rrfn'cni a , a'm^r a>on K*U*nk,^*yf Ji.i/li'f+Um G*J«fKr. . ,4. ai'»i|^-,'i,a mJTVrkr ..n?tnrli'^<*'1on Kn r,'nfrlit\!U’t'\ unTapt«’aA<w< r n nyttU r

III . TT* lfT»*«'f 'X( (inJjxarraiTT .nlf *.n«p 19J1 Unaijar n, .jcTfan iTan iMiiini'dunTiarl.'.n ^(ka'iVrfa •■ J‘««T.TlifTra'a»iiC.ib»fr,a (.'Waa-h ,T at Ml <' r r J-.lffc m'WtT

«k'< ta’.a* Jli Ain *T.a>af J c I * 1 1* nif uaaatlaaili'ajk a«a. . ri f ^.4 f a\t. a,n< nlift n 9 A<*« »n rffan* m* ai ^ |'f,r|Jm I'^rJ'rr - • ■ 1.' J.-a'^x n r.an*1 1 ^a. ail.\ /< p frra • -a ;nn jVnam iaa.i < n «"*n ,Vf
7k.r .^tatag^fr- ( ,T^ *^r-4 — ianjravT . r ,t.w5 tfiitti^i v A*4U ^tackiK* >1 ; Kla.'n* nt.'a r rTt I|T <*ht jJfitr IU> :fir\ t/Vi C rat tint yjf .,■*??•€ h,\f ara (j'uyf <Ott

_».<T»a./7> .g - - JuTarra n f . f-rdnTif i-tiTu »>ia J.'« f.ia . m.»,- ItaJ* ra«a A.* f mm aT. y. n,o,„ct (.a -y [\r«*ia« viJTnTo, •» * 'V» 414 *»*V I *.471. »n* ' J ria 5 nrufif*

<r lr»r. rui, ntvinjiaa i rv. paxffa'r . <.aa a .j‘ .iiuriilufe- ». TCt„(*Tif raunJ^rmnnaiV ^.ijkli’.^taf cft/fientilrnt. ■£*'••/ f*rr> $ Gn . - /•nf.a* . f *// j

>'aii rpTV. "5 j r >4inTar(f iL nitKr « ■ .‘kat tn-.iur\4.V4» . Xtam c«p»;c t4«/t< »nif fra ir«r.turTi<P' *" pc<> rTir r; nAili ^nn tmi tviilir /. I.nia. I r >- ukar?«ki3a p'4)liH«4/Tn'< m( . J*‘ ' ryntt'i* an 1 la a a n •
’*■ "' .1. .a r- > -». • , 4 ** ‘ .r a.*.? u.>pj*4 n< P rixPK. •>• ai'na.»l ‘WrffrrV . C^«f *««lwlia-kt* »a*y irHrn,VkTy»Ar xa rixxAx.. a jak. r»J .Ifk.

ra'/fr^l*n>.«)aft*n ' * 1 r ' •-'~t --” ' *’• » -- ' — 'a- ■—*—••—' "*

kAi'lS*^ fdit kra^na v. /la .*

.■iXr/.'J;

9b</r«*.t'«>t. nq A«krr

1 rla.’li laf r.TLC nif*t frJtdrf L><2 rtatyTi

nval.'DC* 'Siiftt yy.lm'arjr /.'/*-'• /y-

if l. if n* n 5un *tltr <tUy in )alirni(r4,Du J'.lftt y ytliv’o r j r / ./ >**,". h . UcLlii i ay kkA.'h • iay
Jf< (a'|a »1 < a fiar.*. rTAurta ’ /j arlj (L.'a 4c4\t « nni 3a ti /a *,.«

„ ' -* rmthrhx .ty,* r ifap^ati '/7 m j. * ia.tfrnie ^»jip. I A ■‘•Or n 6a'/ja n-lij laTjfa ?.'»ya r G/a‘r»a*« », , it/^Tdn Jar /l.Iy If p »!lc

ithffttn’erktn .'At (an "3*r klnt.ran ^utrtu'-r^ fxini^rrn T’i Ut.rll*T-n«H,„?r U’u|f ,7(UrKt WMcrc' i)«(Cndc«* filWjT (*«? u(in .. n.f nCV* fer/i/ut rA a.7' «n
'^palC’ir.- a__/)t »i..r • <«• urr. TituTilth ktyitu >]u»p.\a <r !.<.j7 r ^J/ta .‘cr* a7..*frtiUty .. ;?,« /«•'•. Tap* (j^trxjar ■7‘Tr<*irw't»n'<i <J* Kr.a ,'iaa.f._ ^ l/, ,, , < ,\. 'I^Tcn . <a.-^Laa^

r>,(C.<c. I'eT. f-irrCToyr n-f tl 7rt,k <f . - ~f.'.f<ya-r ..y,r7«aar«i.

* /ri., 'rraa iVk • - lon«.at. 2.V, <vr>--

fe ik»»UVA,».vf f y

imjainaf k'wtcAt."

JrlalK.inX.. i.a^»,

,-M-

f LStdf~Oinll t fitkTi lit if /7rirtf*.ri7Ji‘l(|l>.Tij‘(|r!4 ryai »4 .a j* avn r,'<*0 a f x/aaVula' <T ru naia a*", an, innfn 1.1 f If -u

i.70^'nfif /«•

iI.raUin'i't^M.'f Gti ilir . ir Ar.uni a\»nl

,or /ahf nartA. Ja n?.') a//- J.1* tfjiffrl ^ ~ *

ir<k7Vr...ti(u»ir "?aVya/ («» i* a.n/ Kaj’n>mT^x<(li *Tm;i»4' f»4a«it4«

»*.n tiU'Af «(.'* AxtOj-rJan Cft-. t'x'yMt fnTn'xti .'*m u'a.'mljr ,Va ;.f,|iraTcmxnlru>ir?.a/t/ 0«i a.nfur#

rt/ jh ^♦iTt^f*4,e.»‘3a»i |«iu4i r*4(4\T«l«f J5raunx-A.m t'^rJan-* >v5# <**»• ^MMfl ia*iJ?tV 54F«i*ff«*»4^<l»t « «niSiV,^4»#p»* iJ«IIrr na/fk^i - j . - - - ^

njtta larMiTAti'#^ iy/ .' U .J cV/yta'rH LufTd^Ttn ‘jhrr.xf.sTrit **te ■• .#afl*p u<»t\ o'ttaiQa rmflcpril j/jjin, Jf't «r »n.p/JKt*.r,iiI<TT/i'<l» H*i J^r nkA*i.j«Uv^Tcn *■

y.nyVe* iV*,nHl*rr rv*VAr'y«l7/clita'JcH,.S,»nyry.klxi’Jl ^Iir.4ui.n>-|-'<ir»«‘fr«a'r,»k» *** citl'tU . _ ^ , OfUtt - JVu7.Vf.J- — . .X •

.i.'.’.f .Sen uii .Mfkfar ■ - /..r« a , * r a yf .'Wfl I Jtx, < yLtf*Sb ,l<4 rJ*Jf rrarwUf ItOifcxUbuy „,Ul«V, /.Ta*«»T«r.nan*m «Mr« 7Miy,‘nini< pinTn^,aliip**n> mar<y.

»v/.» nTi'^O inUif f»Tt».ntr k^f fr«nt<nr4!f nii'^M-lbmtaTtVapffrinjrf G,'J<lk>o- (Vrp.,^/|i t>’« •- ^ Vo * ~

^n*,i. Jpfttiie.'tra nkou*^Mapr, ^V(»r tyxiT. tt- .t> . ' < O • iuA XXW.7.

^roru^crak. filnmfff* £o*.**>. SftSX . trj~. i«lf- I®.4?* I“a1 '^1 •

. 7* Tft*ktf /«»■*. fTrttibis O^Ki-r. IY . iPAfe • . « rTmtrXi'kti^oknftriten fiiltichti* fiiiuJaryn ’Slt/Kf ru<r tin Klti-\

ki*r ifxiatvr .I'ar fa4i*.kar>< >l*yt« v*/,/. A an >mIiI<t ...r>^r3*ra rtl*x^aM*ivu n*. *v' i ) J » ■ Lj.a- ^ lattatr /.kuii.rlar ‘■lUntkTy'tn%ltrk^ir<*<ii

-*..rk*S, ^ ci4 U'O, mvt iK.'mnua- . - (H ar* a .' f. ^ y i.k <™ ^ ^ n> J. , f. nr « r.KfJr..' q%*uir%]*n*leihi**ilrtXun, .T^f glin ju,?.*r^r .4-0

^afH-)f/.r.K-n. Vin./rniTan akian nw^nvUtr J^,»a^«4me, JfcWynf -n JtfM* 3«r ^ ^a-air, <Ar4u\ *i<V. ^e/WfjJarjn

t'tr^num LtUTft (fttt+alltr yl^ni jfj/rrkvlf ff^aT niVi w#r ' 3 *” * J

Dr. H. Loew’s tour de force in calligraphy.

THE BEGINNINGS OF MY RELATIONS WITH LOEW

31

judge Leow as a dipterologist, and not merely as a correspondent
(in Chapter XVI).

Some other details about my correspondence with Loew are not
without interest, as they illustrate the peculiarities of his character.
He usually wrote on a light bluish letter-paper 22.6 by 14.1 centi¬
meters in size. His handwriting was perfect, but exceedingly
minute. On a page of that size he would easily place 60 lines,
but sometimes much more. For instance, in a letter of March 18,
1859, four pages contain successively 74, 85, 94, and 81 lines.
From the very beginning, I had begged him to use Latin char¬
acters, as less trying to the eyes than the Gothic ones, and he had
complied with my request. Loew was evidently proud of his cal¬
ligraphy, and on two occasions it pleased him to produce master¬
pieces of it. On a space of 12 centimeters by 14, he wrote out, in
61 lines, the twenty-seven Latin diagnoses of Japanese Diptera, the
detailed descriptions of which were afterwards published in the
Wien. Ent. Monats ., 1858, p. 100-112 (letter of January 8, 1858).
Not content with that, about a year later (May, 1859) he sent me
the whole of two articles : “ Die nordamerikanischen Arten . . .
Tetanocera,” . . . (Wien. Ent. Monats ., 1859, p. 289-300); and
“ Diptera Americana ab Osten-Sackenio collecta,” decas prima
(in the same periodical, 1860, p. 79-84) ; that is, seventeen printed
pages written out on two pages, on his usual letter-paper of 22.6
by 14.1 centimeters. The first page contains 132 lines, that is on
the average six lines in the space of a centimeter! (I reproduce
the first page of this tour de force in facsimile.) The motive
which makes me insist on this detail is, that the incredible endur¬
ance and tenacity exhibited in such a feat is the very quality that
enabled Loew to accomplish his colossal and, at the same time, his so
homogeneous and thoroughly finished work in descriptive dipterology.

The contents of the letters also showed some peculiarities which
deserve to be noticed, because some of them reappear in Loew’s
entomological publications. The business part of the letters, as I
have said above, left generally but little to be desired. But Loew
was in the habit of introducing extraneous matters, discussions, etc.,
and in such cases his defect of great prolixity appeared to his dis¬
advantage. His habit was to write such portions of a letter at

32 LOEW’S RECEPTION OF MY FIRST WORK ON TIPULIDAE

leisure, when he had nothing else to do ; he would leave off for
several days, or even weeks, so that a letter was only finished a
month, or more, after it had been begun. Such letters were want¬
ing in genuineness ; they had a note of strain in them by no means
pleasant to his correspondent. The same prolixity occurs also in
some of Loew’s publications. A conspicuous instance is the dia¬
tribe of Loew against Bigot, in the Berl. Ent. Zeit ., 1858, p. 841-
346. The first four pages read like a prize essay on zoological
classification, written by a scholar at the bidding of his teacher ;
the last page alone contains criticisms against Bigot. Loew knew
very well that Bigot could not read German, and as this composition
contains nothing of interest to anybody else, it is difficult to guess
for what purpose it was written. The style is the heaviest German,
and there is a sentence which begins about the middle of p. 341
(“ Im ersten Fall,” etc.) and ends on the next page. Both this
performance, and the calligraphic tour deforce which I have repro¬
duced, look like the outpourings of an excess of working-power,
and savor of ostentation.

Another specimen of the same prolixity, although in a less
degree, appears in Loew’s Preface to the second edition of his
“ Posener Dipteren ” (1840), which I have reproduced in the Berl.
Ent. Zeit., 1896, p. 282. And the same failing may be noticed in
the often too long descriptions of Loew’s new species, a failing
which becomes intolerable in his “ Dipteren-Fauna Siidafrika’s ”
(1860). The justification attempted by Loew in the Preface of this
work (p. iv) is quite inadequate. The mere length of a description
is not a merit, as any one will find who will try to determine African
Diptera of the more difficult families from these bewildering de¬
scriptions. No wonder that Loew did not find a publisher for the
second volume, which, according to the statement in the Preface
(p. vi), was to follow soon after the first.

II ON LOEW’S RECEPTION OF MY FIRST WORK ON TIPULIDAE

It would seem natural that Loew should have taken some inter¬
est in the work of his (at that time) young correspondent, concern¬
ing a family of Diptera that he knew to be in a chaotic condition.

LOEW’S RECEPTION OF MY FIRST WORK ON TIPULIDAE

33

I anticipated with pleasure some discussions with him about my
classification, which, although founded upon very insufficient mate¬
rial, had the merit of originality, and introduced an abundance of
characters that had never been used before. The first letter from
Loew (January 17, 1860), announcing the reception of my work of
1859, began with an apology for the delay in acknowledging it,
which he attributed to the dilatoriness of the bookbinder to whom
he had immediately sent it (“ Die Saumseligkeit des Buchbinders,
welclier mir Ihre Limnobina nicht wiederbrachte, die ich ihm gleich
bei dem Eintreffen ubergab”). “At present,” he continued, “I
have studied your paper thoroughly (‘ durchstudirt ’). You are
perfectly right in complaining of the very unsatisfactory arrange¬
ment of the letter-press which interferes very much with the in¬
dispensable orientation. Nevertheless, with some good-will, one
succeeds in getting through it and is rewarded by the contents
(‘ und freut sich dann des gewonnenen Kernes’). Your work is
a real progress in the classification, that perhaps will require modi¬
fication when the faunas of other parts of the world are taken into
consideration. . . . That you have not hesitated to multiply con¬
siderably the number of genera gives me pleasure (‘ freut mich
selir ’). I would have even commended you if, in this respect,
you had in some cases gone further. You see that your publication
has caused me great pleasure. I shall, as much as I can, make use
of it for my own studies. It would be expedient to popularize its
systematic contents in one of our entomological periodicals. I do
not know whether you have already done so in your notice in the
Stett. Ent. Zeit.J- but what I know for certain is, that you would
by this means have rendered a great service, especially if you had
added an enumeration of as many European species as possible
belonging to your new genera. In both respects you would have
promoted the more speedy reception of your work.”

About six weeks later, Loew (March 11, 1860) found it neces¬
sary to renew his assurances. “ Your work on Limnobiae I have
studied again and again.” The result of these studies became
apparent when, in the course of the next year, Loew published in
the Wien. Ent. Monats ., 1861, p. 34, among other Cuban Diptera,

1 I had published a short notice about my work in the Stelt. Ent. Zeit., I860, p. 87.

3

34 LOEW’s RECEPTION OF MY FIRST WORK ON TIPULIDAE

a pretended Rhamphidia, which does not belong to that genus at
all, but is a Teucholabis, a new and very characteristic genus intro¬
duced by me. Loew, in this case, assuming a priori that the
species was a Rhampliidict, because it had a somewhat elongated
proboscis, gave a glance to what I said about this genus, and
found, among the generic characters the words: “no stigmati-
cal cross-vein.” In his specimens that cross-vein was present. So
Loew mentioned this discrepancy at the end of his description:
“ In reliquis Rhamphidiis adhuc descriptis venula transversa stig-
maticalis deest.” If Loew had really studied my work, as he pre¬
tended to have done, he should have begun by looking for his
species in my analytical table of the genera (p. 203) and would
have infallibly reached the genus Teucliolahis , which is described
in detail in the same paper, on p. 222-223. Made impatient by
Loew’s tergiversations, I must in one of my letters have asked him
squarely to communicate to me some remarks about my classifica¬
tion. In an undated letter of 1862 (that is, before the publication
of the Tipulidae in Schiner’s Fauna, Vol. II) I find the following
passage apparently in answer to my request : “ To give you my
opinion about your Limnobina I consider as quite unbecoming,
as you know them ten times better than I ; nevertheless, I shall
attempt it. It is unnecessary to repeat that your work has caused
me a most heartfelt pleasure. I have, as much as possible, at¬
tempted to verify the systematic results obtained by you upon
European as well as upon American species accessible to me. I
must acknowledge their correctness and admire your perspicacity,”
etc. Loew evidently thought that I had been fishing for compli¬
ments, whereas what I wanted was facts. — After the loss by fire
of the manuscript of the intended second edition of my Mono¬
graph, Loew, evidently to fill up some space in one of the long,
rambling letters he used to write me, gave me some advice on the
modifications to introduce in some of the Sections, especially in the
Eriopterina (letter of November 11, 1866). His observations in this
case were based not upon my work, but on Schiner’s second volume
which had appeared in the mean time, so that some of Schiner’s
errors he attributed to me. “The separation of Gnophomyia from
Psiloconopa can be maintained merely on account of the smallness

ROBERT KENXICOTT

35

of the three terminal joints of the antennae and the peculiar erect
pile on the legs of G-nophomyia , perhaps also on the aberrant shape
of the discal cell.” Now the G-nopliomyia of Schiner’s Fauna is
Trimicra O. S. (as Schiner recognized later in his Novara work),
and Gnophomyia O. S. (1859) is an entirely different genus. This
proves that Loew had not paid the slightest attention to the elab¬
orate paper on Trimicra which I had sent him after its publication
in 1861. The same cause produced the same confusion in Loew’s
paper: “ Beschreibung einiger afrikanischer Diptera nemocera”
QBerl. Ent. Zeit., 1866, p. 55-62), in which, on p. 59, a Gnophomyia
inconspicua , sp. n., occurs, which is a Trimicra. That it was easier
for Loew to read German than English is not an excuse ; he under¬
stood English enough to read Haliday and Walker, and even to at¬
tempt to write the first volume of the “ Monographs ” in English.

The two copies of my work of 1859 which I had sent to Loew
after its publication, I purchased after his death from the booksell¬
ers in Leipzig 1 who had acquired his library. One of these copies
was bound , but does not bear any trace of having been handled ;
not a single pencil-mark showing study; not even the slightest
crease, proving that the pages had been turned “ again and again,”
as Loew had assured me. The other copy was in a state of pristine
purity ; that is, entirely uncut. Such is one of the amusing epi¬
sodes of my long relations with Loew 'which I could not resist
reproducing here. That Loew appreciated my system of Tipulidae
he proved much later when, in 1878, he desired me to introduce
it in his work on Amber Diptera (compare my Chapter IX : On
Loew’s work on Amber Diptera, etc.).

Ill ROBERT KENNICOTT

As early as 1859, that is, only three years after my arrival in the
United States, in my “Monograph of the North American Tipu¬
lidae brevipalpi ”' (7, 1859, p. 200) I expressed my gratitude to

1 List und Francke. I preserve both copies, untouched, as a memento in my
library.

36

ROBERT KENNICOTT

my friend Robert Ivennicott, of Illinois, for placing at my
disposal a highly valuable collection of Diptera, made during his
travels in the northwestern parts of the Union. Later, he ex¬
tended his travels much farther north, within the possessions of
the Hudson Bay Company. Any dipterologist using the volumes
of the “ Monographs of North American Diptera ” by Loew and
myself, or Loew’s “ Centuries,” will often in them meet with the
name of Robert Kennicott, as the discoverer of many new species.
Ivennicott honored me with his particular friendship, and it is
astonishing that, with his numerous duties in all branches of natu¬
ral science, he found time enough to collect Diptera for me.

In order to show the high appreciation in which the authorities
in Washington held Ivennicott’s services, I shall quote passages
from official publications in that city. The History of the Half
Century of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 1897, says
about Kennicott : —

“ The notable explorations of Robert Kennicott in British Amer¬
ica and Alaska were made possible by the cooperation of several
private individuals and scientific organizations and the Hudson
Bay Company. This intrepid explorer, whose early death was a
severe loss to American natural history, spent four years in the
North and made the most extensive travels.”

An account of Ivennicott’s earlier explorations is found in the
Smithsonian Reports. The Report of 1863, p. 36, says : “ The
specimens received in 1863, from this [Ivennicott’ s] exploration,
filled forty boxes and packages, weighing, in the aggregate, 3,000
pounds. They embrace in the line of natural history thousands
of skins of mammals and birds, eggs, nests, skeletons, fishes,
insects, fossils, plants, etc. In the line of ethnology are skulls,
dresses, weapons, implements, utensils, instruments of the chase,
in short, all the requisite material to illustrate the peculiarities
of the Esquimaux and different tribes of Indians inhabiting the
northwest regions.”

It was in the beginning of his career of travel that Kennicott
wrote me a very characteristic letter, of which I reproduce ex¬
tracts to illustrate the hardships he had to endure, and at the
same time the easy, good-natured disposition, which makes it

ROBERT KENNICOTT

3

appear as if his principal occupation in the world was to provide
me with Diptera !

“Fort Simpson, Mackenzie’s River, H. B. T.

“Nov. 30, 1859.

“ I can write little more than an apology for my not writing ! I fear my
success among Diptera has not been brilliant. You must remember, how¬
ever, that until I arrived here, I had no opportunity for hunting out the
best localities, and working steadily at the Diptera alone ; and I got here
too late for doing much. Still I have a good many flies, besides those
sent from the Portage. Of Culex, Tabani and black flies I get enough too
readily. — Next March I go on snow-shoes and with dogs across Slave-
Lake to Fort Resolution, that being a much better locality for zoological
operations generally than Fort Simpson. For Diptera it will be capital.
Then you may expect new ones! — Your dear (!) brother dipterologist
Walker appears to have received the larger part, if not all of the insects,
sent from this region. I hope you will enjoy the task of identifying my
specimens with his ‘ descriptions ’ !” [In this part of the letter Kennicott
introduced an account of his projects for the next two years. Ilis great
desire was to reach the Yukon River and Alaska, which, at that time, was
still in possession of Russia. He continued : — ]

“ While wintering at Peel River I hope to make an excursion with an
officer in charge to the Esquimaux on the coast. Some Esquimaux came
up to Fort Simpson this fall, when I taught them to skin birds wrell, and
they promised me lots of fine specimens. As they expect highly valued
articles in return, I doubt not their sending me a lot of things from
[illegible] River, where the officer in charge will receive and pay them
for me. I find the Esquimaux far more intelligent and good-looking than
the Iranians here.”

“ To Prof. Baird I must refer you for an account of my life here. The
packet closes in a few hours, and I have been so lazy as to be obliged now
to shorten my correspondence to the greatest possible degree. I have not
yet sufficiently elaborated any notes on the country for sending them home,
but will try to send something by the spring packet, which reaches Red River
in July. I only send to Prof. Baird a few notes on birds and mammals.”

“ I am having an interesting life of it here, and yet plenty of employ¬
ment. ’T is harder work collecting in the North than at home ! But I
have not had a fair chance yet, and hope for great things next summer. I
am getting some rarae aves among vertebrates this winter. I dress a la
sauvage, camp out for several nights together in the snow, with only two
blankets, and eat tallow (that is, when I can get it !) like an Esquimaux.
Y e get no fresh meat, and from chewing tough dried caribou, the muscles
°f my jaws are developing extraordinarily ! ” etc.

38

SHORT NOTICES OF BENJAMIN D. WALSH AND OTHERS

Kennicott must have been younger than I, and therefore not yet
forty, when he was found dead under a tree (from heart-disease ?)
in May, 1866, at Nulato, on the Lower Yukon.

“ In this dispensation of Providence, science has lost an ardent
and successful votary, and the Institution one of the most valued
collaborators. It is to him that we owe our introduction to the
most important sources of information relative to the fur coun¬
tries, and it is principally through his exertions that the museum
of the city of Chicago, of which he was the director, received its
endowment and organization” (Professor Henry, in the Smith¬
sonian Report, 1867, p. 42).

Honor to the memory of Robert Kennicott ! 1

IY SHORT NOTICES OF BENJAMIN D. WALSH AND HOMER F.

BASSETT, CORRESPONDENTS IN MY WORK ON CYNIPIDAE ; OF

DR. WILLIAM LE BARON (1814-1876), GENEVA, ILLINOIS ; AND

OF MR. E. FOREMAN, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Benjamin D. Walsh was born at Frome, Somerset, Eng¬
land, on September 21, 1808; he graduated at Trinity College, Cam¬
bridge; came to America in 1838, purchased a farm in Illinois, and
settled afterwards, in 1851, in Rock Island, Ill., where he died on
November 18, 1869, in consequence of a railway accident due to
his own imprudence. His wife, whom he had married in England,
survived him ; he left no children. Farming, a lumber business,
and later house building and ownership, were his successive occu¬
pations, and brought him a sufficient competence. In politics he
was a zealous Radical Republican. He was universally esteemed
for his high character, and loved for his unusual good spirits. At
the same time he was in many respects an eccentric. He had paid
some attention to entomology in his young days, before leaving
England. But he took up this science again only twelve years
before his death. The amount of work he accomplished, within

1 I suppose that a detailed biographical notice about Kennicott was published after
his decease, although I have not succeeded in finding any among the literature
accessible to me. My purpose is merely to put on record my personal gratitude to
him.

SHORT NOTICES OF BENJAMIN D. WALSH AND OTHERS

39

that short period, is astonishing. lie voluntarily discharged the
duties of State Entomologist of Illinois during the last years of
his life, and as such (Acting State Entomologist) issued his First
Annual Report for 1867. His final appointment, with a salary of
two thousand dollars per annum, wTas, after much delay, confirmed
by the State Senate but a short time before his death.

My relations with this remarkable man lasted for nearly ten years.
Between May 21, 1860, and October 27, 1869 (just three weeks
before his death), I kept up a most active and instructive corre¬
spondence concerning Oynipidae with him. The sixty-five, gener¬
ally very long, letters from him in my possession would alone fill a
volume. In these letters he often assumed a jocular, rollicking
tone of which the following is a specimen : “ By the way, if you

have your photograph executed head and shoulders only , I wish
you would be kind enough to send me a copy. You formerly let
me have a photograph of full-length size, but, — to tell you the
truth, — I do not take any interest whatever in the sartorial and
sutorial questions of what style of breeches and boots you wear.”
I never had the pleasure of meeting Walsh, but, on my return
from California, in August, 1876, I went to Rock Island for the
sole purpose of paying a visit to his grave. An obituary notice
of him by his, at that time, young friend and collaborator C. Y. Riley
(who later became the greatest economic entomologist of the cen¬
tury) will be found in the American Entomologist , St. Louis,
Missouri, Yol. II, December, 1869, p. 65-68. A very good portrait
is added to it.

It is a strange coincidence that Walsh, Riley, and Walsh’s suc¬
cessor as State Entomologist, Le Baron, all met with a more or
less unnatural death : Walsh, from a railway accident, Riley from
a fall with his bicycle, and Le Baron from the consequences of a
sunstroke.

One of my most worthy correspondents and contributors to my
general entomological work was Dr. William L e Baron, of
Geneva, Ill. I reproduce two passages from an obituary of him
which appeared in a local paper and was sent to me after his death.
It worthily reflects his moral merit as a man in the opinion of his

40

SHORT NOTICES OF BENJAMIN D. WALSH AND OTHERS

fellow-citizens: “ Le Baron was born in Andover, Mass., in 1814;
graduated at Harvard Medical College in 1837, was united in
happy marriage with Miss Sarah Carr in Roxbury, Mass., in 1841 ;
came West, and settled in Geneva in 1844; was appointed State
Entomologist by Governor Palmer in April, 1871, which office he
held for four years. In the summer of 1874, the Doctor suffered
from a sunstroke from which he never recovered.” lie died in
1876, after having spent thirty-two years in Geneva. The obituary
adds : “ Geneva is a better place to live in to-day than it would
have been had Dr. Le Baron never been known in it. The in¬
fluences of the lives of such persons as he was compose the best
element in the social and moral atmosphere of a community.”

A very interesting, detailed biography of Dr. Le Baron, by
Dr. F. W. Goding, appeared in Entomologica Americana , Yol. I,
p. 122 (1885).

My correspondence with Le Baron lasted from 1859 till 1872.
The earnestness of purpose and conscientiousness which character¬
ize his letters fully justify the high reputation which he enjoyed
among those who personally knew him.

With Mr. Homer F. Bassett, of Waterbury, Conn., a re¬
markably keen observer who anticipated Adler’s discovery of the
dimorphism of the Cynipidae , I had a very active and instructive cor¬
respondence between the years 1864 and 1867. It was continued,
although with interruptions, after my departure for Europe in 1877.
I am happy to say, that, while preparing this “ Record,” I received a
letter from Mr. Bassett, dated from Waterbury, July 15, 1898, and
informing me that, although two years older than myself, he still
hopes to publish descriptions of a large number of new Cynipidae
discovered by him.

[Since this was written in 1898, Entomological News, of Philadelphia,
September, 1902, records the sad news of the death of Mr. Bassett, on June 28,
1902, in Waterbury, Conn. A biographical notice and an excellent portrait are
appended.]

Among other men of science who have been useful to me in con¬
tributing to my studies on Cynipidae , I owe a debt of gratitude to
Mr. E. Foreman of the United States Patent Office in Wash-

THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF PHILADELPHIA

41

ington, with whom (between 1856 and 1861) I took frequent walks
in the environs of that city. He taught me to distinguish the
numerous species of oaks occurring in the United States, and
procured me many new galls and other vegetable deformations.

My first paper on American galls (14, 1862) was published in the
Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia , at that
time a young Society, which had been founded only the year before
(compare the following Chapter V).

Y A CONTRIBUTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE ENTOMO¬
LOGICAL SOCIETY OF PHILADELPHIA

Residing, as I did, in Washington (up to 1862), I had the oppor¬
tunity of witnessing the origin and the first beginnings of the
Society. To me, a European, these beginnings afforded such a
remarkable insight into American energy and enterprise that I am
glad to give a short account of them.

There was no entomological society in existence in the United
States in 1861. A number of friends of entomology in Philadel¬
phia started the idea of forming such an association, and this un¬
dertaking soon found a sympathetic response from other parts of
the country. Numerous written communications, donations, and
specimens began to flow in after the first meeting of the new asso¬
ciation on the 11th of March, 1861. The Proceedings of the
Society, Vol. I, p. 2-6, contain the account of our first four meet¬
ings. The want of funds which impeded at first the progress of
the Society was relieved by Dr. Thomas B. W i 1 s o n , “ one of
the earliest and most devoted members ” who, “ from the very com¬
mencement of this Society,” gave it a “ firm and unwavering sup¬
port, by contributing to its Library and Cabinet, and by large
endowments in money ” (Proc., Vol. IV, p. vii, 1865). Dr. Wilson,
unfortunately for the Society, died four years after its founda¬
tion. The most active member of the Society, however, was its
Corresponding Secretary, Mr. Ezra T. Cresson, with whom
I kept up at that time an active correspondence. I shall con¬
tent myself with reproducing passages of his letters, which speak
for themselves.

42

THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF PHILADELPHIA

On September 4, 1861, Mr. Cresson wrote: “We clo our own
printing, as you already know; I am the compositor and also
assist in the press-work, and although I have had little or no
experience in setting type (I have set the type for all the pages of
the Proceedings thus far), yet be assured that I will do my best to
have your paper got up in as neat and scientific a style as possible,
although we have but three kinds of type, Long Primer , Minion ,
and Minion Clarendon. — The next number will appear at the
regular time, unless something unforeseen should happen.”

September 26, 1861 : “ Please excuse me for troubling you with
a proof of one single page onlg ; the reason I send this single page is
this. On Monday evening last Dr. Wilson, with his usual liberal¬
ity, presented the Publication Committee with enough money to pur¬
chase a press which will print four pages at once. We now have
the press at the room, ready for action, and now as we have sent
you the proof of the first three pages (which by the way Le Conte
has returned corrected) we send the enclosed to make up the fourth,
so that we may go on and print them off, as soon as you return this
one corrected. By the time this is corrected and returned, four
more pages will be on their way to you for correction, and so on
until the paper is finished. So please return the enclosed as soon
as you possibly can. The 25 copies extra will, with much pleasure,
be forwarded to you as soon as the paper is finished. — If you
should have any paper hereafter that may require lithographic
plates (such as larvae, etc.), we will bear the expenses of getting
them up and printed off, that is if the drawings are sent to us. We
have a young artist, a member, who has undertaken to do all the
lithographing for us free of cost; all we have to pay for is the
press-work and paper. — Now as we have a large press, we are ready
for any amount of material ! ”

The large press enabled the Publication Committee to print four
pages at once ; and yet, the small hand-press, with the type set by
Mr. Cresson, from which the single pages of the first issues of the
Proceedings were struck off, produced work which can stand com¬
parison with the best work of an average typography.

November 12, 1861: “Please find herewith 25 extra-copies of
your valuable paper. I hope that you will excuse any errors that

THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF PHILADELPHIA

43

may be found, and also if the general appearance may not be so uni¬
form as books generally are, but please remember that we are not
printers by trade, but only greenhorns, and have to learn every¬
thing by experience. We hope to improve as we progress. We
never dampen our printing paper, because it removes the glossy
whiteness. We use the best ink and paper, we only want experi¬
ence to make a tip-top job of it. By doing the printing ourselves
we save a great deal. For instance, our first number cost us only
about $11; the second, $8.50; and the third, $10. — Total, only
$29.50, say $30, for a pamphlet of 72 pages and 250 copies! We
have already saved nearly $80 by working the affair ourselves. —
We have plenty of material for No. 4 (November and December,
1861), but we have none for No. 5 (January and February, 1862).
Can you give us something for this number? — I hope that we will
receive the earnest encouragement and co-operation of all entomo¬
logical authors, for our Journal can hardly fail to be a valuable
medium through which to diffuse entomological science.”

I have before me seventy-two letters of this kind, in the neatest
handwriting, which I received from Mr. Cresson between 1861
and 1869 ; twenty-one of them were written during the year 1862
alone. I was delighted to have my papers published by the Soci¬
ety, for, so far as my knowledge of typography goes, I could not
have found elsewhere in the United States a special periodical with
such a 44 tip-top ” printing as theirs (besides my natural desire to
encourage such exemplary scientific zeal). For the first volume (be¬
tween October, 1861, and February, 1863) I furnished five papers,
occupying nearly one hundred pages of the volume. Among them
are my papers on the larvae of Mycetophilidae and on those of some
rare Coleoptera, both accompanied with plates. My series of
papers on Cynipidae and several other papers appeared in the same
Proceedings.

I am glad to have found this opportunity for inserting in my
44 Record ” an expression of my gratitude and appreciation to Mr.
Cresson and his associates at that time !

44

WINNERTZ AND LOEW

VI WINNERTZ AND LOEW

Loew and Winnertz had been for several years in active
correspondence on the subject of Cecidomyiae , and Winnertz, as
Loew must have known, was preparing a monograph of this
family when, to Winnertz’s surprise, Loew anticipated him by the
publication of a monograph of the same family in his “ Diptero-
logische Beitriige,” No. IV, 1850 ( Cecidomyiae ). Loew’s prolonged
correspondence with Winnertz, and the great amount of informa¬
tion he received from him, are entirely ignored in this work ; in
fact, the name of Winnertz is not mentioned, except in one or two
insignificant passages (as, for instance, on p. 18, about Sciara tili-
cola). Three years later, Winnertz published his oivn monograph,
and the manner in which in this work he refers to Loew’s publi¬
cation, without the slightest reproach or malignant allusion, may
serve as a model of dignity and moderation. In my “ Introduc¬
tion ” (p. 2) I have mentioned the visit I paid to Winnertz at
Crefeld,1 in 1856, on my way to the United States. I was greatly
impressed by his grave and dignified demeanor. He told me that
he regretted having been obliged to give up the instructive corre¬
spondence with Loew, but that after Loew’s behavior towards him
he felt repugnant to continue it.

I am not aware that any biographical notice of Winnertz has ever
been published. In Hagen’s “Bibliotheca” I find that Johann
Winnertz , merchant at Crefeld, was born in January, 1800. The
date of his death is unknown to me. I find him mentioned among
the members of the Stettiner Entomologische Gesellschaft as late as
1890, but this is evidently an error. Winnertz’s collection, after
his death, came into the possession of the University of Bonn,
where I saw it in June, 1881.

It would be difficult, from the existing data, to form an opinion
upon the extent of Loew’s plagiarism in this case. That it must
have been considerable may be surmised from Loew’s own ambigu¬
ous statement (Joe. cit ., p. 2): “Although I cannot boast of having
had many opportunities of observing in the open air, I have seen

1 Crefeld, like Coin, is spelled ad libitum, with K or C in German.

WINNERTZ AND LOEW

45

things (‘ ich habe manches gesehen ’) that had escaped the atten¬
tion of others, and I have formed opinions on the systematic
question, which may perhaps prove useful for its further study.”
Loew, who was a zealous, one may say an impetuous, collector, was
by no means an habitual observer of life (Loew as a collector I
shall discuss in my Chapter XVI, “ Characterization of Loew as
a Dipterologist ”). For this reason we have a right to suspect
that the abundant material in observations from life, contained in
Loew’s monograph, was largely due to unacknowledged contribu¬
tions of Winnertz.

As to the “ opinions ” which Loew pretends to have formed “ on
the systematic question,” he had likewise borrowed them from
another author. Loew adopts, in his paper of 1850, the subdivi¬
sion of the Ceciclomyiidae which Rondani had introduced ten years
earlier, in 1840, a subdivision which the same Loew (in the Stett.
Ent. Zeit ., 1847, p. 146-147) had at first attempted to disparage
in contemptuously calling it “splitting ” ( “ Zersplitterung ” )d
There is very little doubt that this complete change of opinion
within three years Loew likewise owed to his correspondence
with Winnertz.

It sounds like sarcasm, and probably was meant for it (upon the
principle of humanum est odisse quern Icieseris'), when Loew, at the
very beginning of his monograph of 1850 (p. 2) inserts the follow¬
ing grandiloquent passage : “ There is hardly any other science
which, like Natural Science, can render as exact an account of the
Masters who, during its gradual edification, have contributed their
share of work to the different parts of the structure. Hence, the
names of Old Masters are more faithfully remembered in this, than
in any other science, and the veneration of these names, stamped
as they are on each building-stone, has become for posterity a
custom which I shall attempt to fulfil here, so far as the literary
resources accessible to me will allow.”

Crefeld, the residence of Winnertz, is a flourishing town, at a
short distance from the Rhine, not far from Diisseldorf, and has
now (1900) 106,000 inhabitants. It is an industrial centre for

1 These facts will he reproduced with more detail in Chapter XIX, “ Camillo Ron¬
dani and his relations with Loew.”

46

WINNERTZ AND LOEW

silks and velvets. Winnertz’s usual and most abundant collecting-
ground was a covered bowling-alley in his garden, one side of
which was protected by a glass partition. Upon this glass wall he
used to catch a profusion of minutiae , like Chironomus , Ceratopogon ,
Mycetophilidae , and Cecidomyiae. His catching-apparatus con¬
sisted principally in a glass-tube, the cork of which was moistened
with a drop of ether. The specimens were thus brought home in
perfect condition, and immediately pinned on silver (or platinum?)
wire. For drawing wings, antennae, and other parts of his speci¬
mens, Winnertz had constructed a camera by which the magnified
image of the object was projected on a horizontal, transparent film,
upon which the drawing was traced, in its minutest details, with
the point of a needle. The drawings were afterwards mounted on
a black sheet, and thus became distinctly visible. Besides the
published copperplate No. 1 of his work on Ceratopogon, which
represents the tips of the tarsi and the palpi of some of the species,
Winnertz showed me, as far as I remember, other drawings of
details which have remained unpublished, as their publication had
been considered too expensive. I have made a vain attempt, by
means of inquiries at Crefeld and Bonn, to recover those drawings.

Of the seventy-seven species of Ceratopogon , described by Win¬
nertz, about two thirds are new species.

A unique instance of Winnertz’s painstaking and conscientious¬
ness is the Tabellarisches Verzeichniss der diagnostischen Ver-
haltnisszahlen ” on pages 13 and 14 of his Monograph. The
amount of work bestowed upon the micrometric measurements of
such a large number of the minutest objects is incredible. Win¬
nertz told me that these two pages cost him more work than the
labor of the whole monograph. But Winnertz’s genius made
him feel that this exertion was not useless. The excellent Schiner
paid him a due tribute of admiration, when he said: “Die Masse
sind so richtig und zur sicheren Bestimmung so werthvoll, dass ich
sie tiberall anzufiihren mich fiir verpflichtet erachte ” 1 (Schiner,
Fauna Austriaca, II, p. 575, footnote; paragraph on the genus
Ceratopogoii).

1 (Translation). “ The measurements are so accurate, anil so important for the
exact determination of the species, that I feel bound always to quote them.”

LOEW’S FIRST VOLUME OF THE “MONOGRAPHS”

47

Winnertz’s work on Cecidomyiidae and Mycetophilidae has found
many successors, but that on Ceratopogon has not. A great deal
remains to be done for the classification of this group, so rich in
European and exotic forms, some of which are remarkable for the
great variety of their general organization, as well as for the mani¬
fold modes of their transformation. But it will be difficult for any
future worker in this branch to surpass the genius and the consci¬
entiousness of Winnertz !

YII REMARKS, HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL, CONCERNING
LOEW’S FIRST VOLUME OF THE MONOGRAPHS OF
NORTH AMERICAN DIPTERA, WASHINGTON, 1862

The first volume of the “ Monographs of North American Dip-
tera ” begins with the chapter On the terminology of Diptera , p. xi-
xxiv, followed by a Sketch of the systematic arrangement of Diptera,
p. 1-48. These papers were written by Loew at the special
request of Professor Henry (of the Smithsonian Institution), who
wanted some kind of Introduction to Dipterology at the head
of the intended series of the Monographs. This very natural
request found Loew utterly unprepared. In a letter to me (July
25, 1860), he said : “ I undertook this work with fear and terror
(‘Furcht und Grauen ’), because the existing Systems are not
acceptable, and the difficulties of the introduction of a new one can
be understood only by those who know the lamentable state of
things we are in (‘ wie alles hier noch im Argen liegt ’). Just by
such a work one may expose oneself to very disagreeable criti¬
cisms ! For a long time I have been hesitating whether I should
not altogether get rid of this, to me most repulsive, task (‘ mir
sehr widerwartige Arbeit ’). Now, after much effort, the ‘ Opus ’
is completed (‘ das Opus ist nun fertig ’). That I have learned
much during this work is certain ; whether others will learn much
from it — is doubtful (‘ ob auch andere daraus viel lernen werden,
zweifelhaft ’). As an unmistakable result I have obtained the
confirmation of my old convictions : (1) That the venation must
be maintained as the chief basis of classification ; (2) That the

48

LOEW’S FIRST VOLUME OF THE “MONOGRAPHS

principal subdivision of the Diptera into Nemocera and Bracliycera
must be given up, as soon as we attempt the introduction of a
more or less natural system. The first I have accomplished ; the
last I have left undone, in order not to deviate too much from
the accepted arrangement (‘ um nicht zu selir von dem Gewolmten
abzuweichen ’)”.

Loew was fortunate in having left undone his proposed reform
of the system, for, far from being a progress, it would have been a
step backwards from what Latreille had established in his “ Genera ”
(1809), half a century before ! I have exposed this error in my
article in the Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1892, p. 421 (130, 1892) and have also
mentioned it in the “ Introduction” of this “ Record ” (p. 11).

The other conviction of Loew, that the venation should be consid¬
ered as the chief basis of classification, should likewise be accepted
with some caution. It is in consequence of his reliance on this
character, taken separately and without regard to the whole organ¬
ization, that Loew, in 1844, pointed out most unnatural affinities
between Liponeura , Macropeza, Diamesa , Orphnephila ( Chenesia
Macq.), and Simulium ( Stett . Ent. Zeit., 1844, p. 121-122). In
the next year, 1845 ( “ Dipterologische Beitrage,” No. I) he pro¬
posed his subdivision of his Tipula gallicola into Polyneura
(Psychodidae) and Oligoneura ( Cecidomyiidae') ; and, as late as
1860 ( “ Dipteren-Fauna Siidafrika’s ” ) he introduced his sub¬
division of the Cyrtidae into two sections, which proved untenable
(all these criticisms are developed more in detail in my Chapter
NVI : “ Characterization of Loew as a Dipterologist ").

During this period of his career (1860-1862) Loew seems to
have been completely in the dark about the system of classification
to adopt. He confesses it candidly in his above-quoted letter
(July 25, 1860) and shows it in his publications. In his “ Dipteren-
Fauna Siidafrika’s ” (1860, Preface, p. v) he acknowledges his per¬
plexity, and adds that his views come nearest to those of Haliday
(in Walker’s Ins. Brit. Dipt., Vols. I— III, 1851-1856). Neverthe¬
less, Loew placed Thereva between Tabanidae and Asilidae, while
Ilaliday considered Thereva as a Bombylid, which is certainly nearer
the truth. Both authors placed the Leptidae between the Asilidae
and Bombyliidae , which cannot be justified.

LOEW’S FIRST VOLUME OF THE “MONOGRAPHS

49

In the Monographs, etc., Vol. I (18G2), Loew gives up Haliday’s
guidance, and arranges the families apparently hap-hazard. In the
Nemocera , Haliday had placed the Mycetophilidae (including Sciara
and Zygoneura ) next to the Cecidomyiidae, which is correct. Loew
separated these two families by a long interval, inserting the Ble-
pharoceridae , Psychodidae, and Tipulidae between them ! Among
his Cecidomyiidae we find Zygoneura and Biamesa Meig. ! The
latter he considers a synonym of Lestremia Macq. ! (loc. cit., p. 7).

The Brachycera were arranged by Haliday in Walker’s work
(185G) as follows : Stratiomyiidae, Xylophagidae , Tabanidae, Acro-
ceridae (placed here on account of the three pulvilli), Asilidae,
Leptidae , Bombyliidae , Scenopinidae , Empidae , Bolichopodidae,
Lonchopteridae , Platypezidae, Pipunculidae , Syrphidae , Conopidae ;
after which follows the large division Museidae. Although Ilali-
day correctly placed the Syrphidae just before his Musculae , it is
strange that he did not recognize the importance of the generali¬
zation introduced by Latreille (1825) with his division Athericera,
embracing both Syrphidae and Museidae , and founded not only
upon their mode of transformation, but upon characters of the
imago which have been overlooked by later authors.

Loew, in the same volume of the Monographs, made an incompre¬
hensibly retrograde step in placing the Syrphidae quite far from
the Museidae , and in introducing the whole series of the Lonclio-
pteridae, Ilybotidae , Empidae , Tachydromidae , and Bolichopodidae
between them ! He seems to have been entirely unaware of the
existence of the large division Athericera Latr. (1825), and when
Brauer adopted the division in Orthorrhapha and Cyclorrhapha, the
latter of which coincides with Latreille’s Athericera , Loew accepted
this subdivision as an unexpected novelty ! (Compare my “ Sug¬
gestions towards a Better Grouping,” etc., in the Ent. Monthly
Mag., 1891, p. 85, 121, 1891.)

In consequence of these arbitrary arrangements in the Mono¬
graphs, Vol. I (1862), Loew did not escape the “disagreeable criti¬
cisms ” he was so much afraid of. S c h i n e r published a rather se¬
vere one ( Verb . zool.-bot. Gesellsch., Wien, 18G4, p. 209), although
the “ System ” proposed by himself was not much better. In the

Novara work (1868) Schiner was perfectly right in adopting

4

50

LOEW'S FIRST VOLUME OF THE “MONOGRAPHS

Hali day's concept of the Empidae which includes the Hybotidae
and Tachydromidae.

In the preface to the second edition of his earliest work “ On the
Diptera of the Environs of Posen ” (1840), which I have repro¬
duced in the Berl. Ent. Zeit 1896, p. 282-284, Loew, after point¬
ing out the deficiencies of dipterologv of that time, foreshadows a
programme of his future work. He says : “ I should have been
glad to add remarks on the anatomy, biology, and life-habits to the
enumeration of the species ; but this would have made the defects
of the adopted System of Diptera so glaring that one would have
felt tempted to propose a new arrangement, an undertaking which
is not within my intentions at present, and which would have re¬
quired many extensive preparatory researches,” etc. “ However, I
shall mention here, as a preliminary result of a considerable num¬
ber of anatomical researches, that the great importance which
Meigen attached to the structure of the antennae and of the wings
seems to have been the principal reason why the System introduced
by him appears naturally incoherent, as soon as we take the inner
organization (‘ innere Organization ’) into account. Without
denying the true value of these characters, and without refusing
them a practical value,1 it would seem that a closer study of the
manifold and easily accessible peculiarities in the structure of the
thorax and of the abdomen might have brought about an arrange¬
ment in many respects more natural,'’ etc. In spite of such
anticipations and promises of a better system, Loew, after an
interval of twenty years , produced an arrangement which, far
from being an improvement, was a deterioration of the existing
one ! Loew’s talent lay in the direction of the particular, the
minute , and not in that of generalization. He felt it quite well
himself when he wrote me (November 10, 1862): “ Minutiae are
my specialty, particularly when they fall within the domain of the
Acalyptrata (‘ Die Minutien sind so recht mein Fach, besonders
wenn sie in das Reich der Acalypteren fallen ’).” Loew’s best work
is certainly his numerous papers relating to this group.

1 “ Ohne diesen Merkmalen ihren wahren Werth zu nehmen, und ohne ihren prak-
tischen Werth ableugnen zu wollen,” etc. By practical value Loew meant, I suppose,
the value of the characters for determining specimens.

HALIDAY AND LOEW

51

VIII HALIDAY AND LOEW

Besides the scanty data on Haliday’ s life and work, contained
in the “Obituary Notice” in the Ent. Monthly May., 1870, p. 91, I
am not aware of the existence of any more detailed account of
this remarkable man and eminent entomologist. I shall attempt,
therefore, to supply this want in a certain measure by giving a
survey of his relations with Loew, which have exercised a consider¬
able influence on the work of both of them. Haliday and Loew
were contemporaries, being born in the same year, 1807, but Hali-
day’s first publication dates from 1831, nine years before Loew's,
and he had already published several valuable papers on Diptera
when Loew appeared upon the stage.

There are several strange coincidences in the chronology of Diptera : The four
great dipterologists of the century were born nearly at the same time : Loew and
Haliday in 1807 ; Zeller and Rondani in 1808. Loew and Rondani died in the
same year, 1879, Haliday nine years earlier, 1870; Zeller survived them all, and
died in 1883. The first publications on Diptera by Loew, Rondani, and Zeller
appeared in the same year, 1840.

I have called attention in the Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1895, p. 168 (144. 1895) to
similar coincidences in the dates of the discovery of some remarkable forms of Dip¬
tera, as Scenopinus, Orplinephila, and some of the Blepharoceridae.

The interesting article of C. L. Marlatt : “ Brief Historical Survey of Ento¬
mology ” ( Proc . Entom. Soc. Washington , Yol. IY, Xo. 2, 1898), coutains a
chronological table of naturalists, and especially of entomologists, which shows
that the years 1807-1809 were particularly prolific of them. Haliday and
Rondani, born in 1807 and 1808, should have been added to this list.

My sources of information on the subject of the relations of
Loew and Haliday consist in the mentions of Haliday in Loew's
letters to me, as well as in the very valuable collection of letters
of Haliday to Loew, now in possession of Mr. G. H. Verrall in
Newmarket, England, which lie most generously loaned me for
study. To work up exhaustively this most abundant supply of
information on the mutual influence of both entomologists, afforded
by this correspondence, is a task beyond my power. I shall keep
within the bounds of my present unambitious purpose.

The earliest letter contained in Mr. Yerrall’s collection is dated
from Clifden, near Belfast (Ireland), September 27, 1847. It begins

52

HALIDAY AND LOEW

as follows : “ In the course of this summer, your letter, bearing date
the 16th of March previous, came to my hands, along with other
matters sent me, through London, from the Stettin Society. It
gratified me much to receive this mark of consideration from such
a distinguished naturalist, and one I look up to as the first living
authority on all things concerning that order [Diptera] to the study
of which I am most inclined, as far as my materials extend. I am
glad to find that my little contribution of specimens has been
received with such friendly readiness, as I ventured to expect from
your liberal temper ; and I return you my best thanks for the very
interesting and useful series of specimens, which you have had the
goodness to transmit to me, containing many new and quite (to
me) unknown species, and what I value not less, the authentic
determination of important species.” It appears from this passage
that it was Haliday who opened the correspondence by sending to
Loew a collection of specimens, that Loew had answered him in
March, 1847, and that the first letter of VerraH’s collection, dated
from Clifden, was the second letter of the correspondence.

The rest of the long letter from Clifden shows Haliday’s earnest
desire to develop in Ireland an interest in scientific entomology,
and to establish the necessary conformity between it and the con¬
tinental literature in regard to terminology and nomenclature (in¬
cluding synonymy). To the letter are added manuscript lists of
the Irish species of Hydromyzidae , Dolichopodidae, and of the
genera Scatopse and Tipula ; a list of supposed synonymies of Irish
Diptera ; a paragraph on OrphnepMla, with tracings of an, at that
time, unpublished plate with twenty-four figures ; another paragraph
on Clunio marinus , with tracings of the figures which were pub¬
lished later (1855) in the Naturcd History Review, and many
incidental remarks and notices on genera and species of Diptera.
A box with insects accompanied the letter, the catalogue of which
is also crowded with synonymies and notices. One of these con¬
tains a very remarkable reference to the new subdivision of the
JPsychodidae, introduced by Haliday in Curtis’s “ Brit. Entom.
Diptera,” plate 745 (dated June 1, 1839) ; I shall refer to it in my
Chapter, “ Loew as a Dipterologist.”

This letter of Haliday’s with its annexes shows an immense

HALIDAY AND LOEW

53

amount of work, set forth in a modest, inquiring, almost hesitating
manner. It ends with the words : “ And trusting that you will
kindly excuse the length and desultory style of this hurried letter
(encouraged by your permission to address you in English), I
remain, etc.”

In writing such a letter Haliday may be supposed to have ex¬
pected a commensurate reply. The beginning of Haliday’s next
letter (dated from London, December 11, 1847) does not show that
this expectation had been realized : “ My last letter to you, although
delayed in consequence of the change of Dr. Schaum’s plans (who
originally intended to have himself conveyed it to you when he
returned to Germany) has, however, as I understand from Mr.
Dohrn, been transmitted to you, and I am in hopes that, when time
allows, you will favor me with the remarks of which you have
given me hopes, on some of the species which have been referred
to in the letters which have passed.” Haliday gives an account of
his visit to the British Museum and to the Linnean collection (in
Burlington House). About the latter, he says : “ Difficulties

(which I will not here mention in detail) exist and involve great
loss of time in the determination of the species, and unfortunately
and unaccountably the latter half of the Order Diptera, from
Musca 63 (lltli Ed. Systema Naturae) are wanting. If I cannot
find time and the requisite apparatus for going through the entire ,
I hope to determine some of the debated species.” Haliday gives
here some instances of his identifications and continues : “ But I
hope you will see more about this subject hereafter in the Stettin
Journal.” (The article referred to was published, in German trans¬
lation, in the Stett. Ent. Zeit ., 1851, p. 131-145 ) Apropos of the
Stett. Ent. Zeit., Haliday notices in the number received by him
Loew’s article on Ruthe’s publication on Diptera in Oken’s
Isis of 1831 (Loew, Stett. Ent. Zeit., 1847, p. 66-71). With his
usual candor, he at once acknowledges the right of priority of the
name Thaumalea Ruthe over his Orplinephila, although they were
apparently published in the same year, 1831 (I shall revert to this
subject farther on). The letter ends with the words: “Believe
me, with much desire to cultivate and enjoy your further corre¬
spondence and more intimate acquaintance, yours,” etc.

54

HALIDAY AND LOEW

Another letter from Haliday, of much later date (Paris, Hotel
de l'Empire, February 9, 1862), contains some facts of importance.
I reproduce fragments of it : —

“I left London with my friends on Tuesday morning, reached Amiens
that evening, spent the next day with Dr. Dours [hymenopterologist], and
reached Paris by lly^ p.m. The next day I called on Dr. Sichel, — then
of course to the Museum. . . . The next day at Dr. Sichel’s (Hymenoptera),
Saturday again at the Museum. In the parts of Meigen’s collection to
which I confined my attention ( Mmcidae Acctlypt .) . . . the species
represented are few beyond all my previous suppositions. It is evident
that he derived more from v. Winthem’s and Wiedemann’s collections than,
from his own ; or that the duplicates of which his heirs disposed to Mr.
Winnertz included a material part of the whole. Yet even the little
remaining I found to take much time to muster and survey; the more so
from their imperfect condition. I first went through Helomyzci-Heteromyza
with your tables ; then Ephydra and Hydrellia , hastily. The results I
have copied out for you (vide postscript ),1 expecting to set out to-morrow.
At present, however, the aspect of the weather, snow and frost . . . in¬
duces us to pause for one or for two days, before we prepare to encounter
Mont Cenis. I shall therefore, I expect, have one more morning at the
Museum. ... I have not had a sight of Mr. Bigot till this afternoon.”
[In a footnote Haliday adds :] “ Bigot has got from Corsica the most re¬
markable Nemocerous Dipteron I have ever seen.” [which evidently refers
to the Blepharocerid Apistomyia Bigot, published in the same year]. “ I feel
much obliged by the effort you made, under the instant pressure of busi¬
ness, to write to me. ... I am glad to know the Discomyza arrived safe.
Finding that the volume of Curtis’s ‘Farm Insects’ might go . . . more
safely through my booksellers, I have entrusted it to them . . . and
hope it will reach you speedily. I shall receive with real gratification the
present you propose for me of your ‘ South African Diptera.’ ... I ex¬
pect to find his [Bellardi’s] collection of Piedmontese Diptera very
interesting. . . . He has been collecting long enough to furnish a good
provincial collection. — There I must conclude. Ever yours sincerely,” etc.

I shall give in the sequel further extracts from Haliday ’s letters
concerning Loew’s first volume of the “ Monographs of North
American Diptera,” which appeared in 1862.

These few extracts from Haliday’s correspondence afford much
of interest, not only from the biographical, but also from the scien-

1 A long, very painstaking enumeration of species, with numerous remarks and
synonymies.

HALIDAY AND LOEW

55

tific point of view. My often reiterated thesis that “ beginnings
are generally symptomatic of the beginner ” has seldom been more
strikingly illustrated than by Haliday. His first publication on
Diptera was that on Orphnephila (1831), perhaps the most refrac¬
tory genus of the Order. Haliday gave a description of it (with
figures) which, in its completeness, is far in advance of most of the
generic descriptions in the same Order before his time. With his
characteristic indifference for notoriety, he seems to have acquired,
some time afterwards, many new facts on the same subject without
publishing them immediately. This appears from his paper,
“ Notes on Irish Diptera,” published a quarter of a century later
( Natural History Revieiv , Proceedings, Yol. Ill, 1856, p. 73,
Plate II), in which he submits to the Dublin University Zoological
and Botanical Association “ some notes and sketches of the internal
anatomy of both sexes of Orq)hnephila , made many years since."
A long time previous to this publication, in the letter quoted
above (September 27, 1847), Haliday had communicated to Loew
the drawing of a plate containing twenty-six figures of the internal
and external anatomy of Orphnephila , only a portion of which
were published in the plate of 1856, and the rest are unpub¬
lished to this day (I cannot make a detailed comparison, because
I have before me only a manuscript extract of the paper of 1856,
and no plate). This laborious piece of work is introduced in Hali-
day’s letter to Loew in the following modest manner : “ I send
also tracings of some of the details of Orphnephila , which may
enable your practised eye to pronounce on its affinities. Rondani,
after seeing the insect, continued to be of opinion that it should
form a distinct family ; but this gives no information as to its true
place, nor does he seem to me to be particular as to the series of
his families, contenting himself with the definition of them,” etc.
I find that Loew, fifteen years later, in the “ Monographs,”
Yol. I, p. 6 (1862), placed Orphnephila at the end of the Chiro-
nomiclae , and added: “It differs from all other Chironomidae by
the veins of the wings running without attenuation to, and the
costal vein being continued round, the posterior border. If we do
not establish a separate family for it, its proper place will be here,
but as an anomalous genus.” If Loew had offered the same solu-

56

HALIDAY AND LOEW

tion to Haliday iti 1847, I doubt if the latter would have been satis¬
fied with it!

In the next letter to Loew (December 11, 1847, of which I have
already given an extract above), Haliday took up the subject of
Orphnephila again, and said : “ I have (I doubt not) succeeded,
in what I had long sought in vain, to find the larva of Thaumalea ,
though, just about to leave home on a journey, I had to leave it to
the care of a non-entomological friend, and fear it will not be
reared. It is half -aquatic, with anterior and posterior spira¬
cles only, and though furnished with very singular, numerous, gill¬
like appendages in a double row down the back, seems to be not
very distant from the larvae of Ceratopogon ,” etc.1 This mention of
the larva of Orphnephila has never been published, and Haliday him¬
self does not refer to it, either in Walker’s “Ins. Brit. Dipt.,” Vol.
Ill (1856), or in his “ On Some Remaining Blanks,” etc. (1857).
There is no doubt that, later, he recognized in it the larva of the
Psychodid Ulomyia, the description of which, as given in Walker,
loc. cit ,, Vol. II, p. 254, agrees with the statement made in Haliday ’s
letter.

That Haliday, in the above-quoted passage of his letter, calls
the fly Thaumalea (and not Orphnephila ) is again a fine trait of
his character. When he published his first paper on Orjihnephila ,
he was not aware of the contemporaneous publication of Ruthe.
As soon as he knew of it he acknowedged (in the same letter of
December 11) its right of priority, because the number of the vol¬
ume of the Zoological Journal containing Haliday’s paper, although
dated 1831, was not actually published until 1833, “the expenses
of the Journal being greater than the returns, or from some other
causes.” Later, however, it was proved that the name Thaumalea
was preoccupied, and Haliday’s name was therefore retained.

The behavior of Haliday in the matter of Orphnephila affords
an epitome of his whole scientific career: an intense craving for
completeness and perfection, quite disinterested, because shy of

1 This comparison with Ceratopogon is not appropriate, because the larvae of the
latter genus are polymorphous, and were very little known at that time. Haliday, as
appears in a footnote in the same letter, refers to the Ceratopogon larvae with spatu-
late appendages on the back, which have been described by Dufour (1845) and by
Perris (184G).

HALIDAY AND LOEW

57

publicity ; a sincere desire of being useful, by imparting useful
knowledge to others, unmindful of the amount of work it involved
(and that even in cases where other savants would have kept quiet
in order to secure priority), — all this, combined with an almost
feminine coyness, hiding his free gifts under his initials, or in
private letters. An exquisite specimen of Iialiday’s courtesy
towards his critics is found in his paper, “ On the Affinities of the
Aplianiptera ,” etc., Natural History Review, January, 1856, p.
12. In a footnote Haliday quotes the following passage from Bur-
meister’s “ Manual of Entomology,” Yol. II, p. 407 : “ Haliday . . .
after the fashion of his compatriots, who seem to consider the mul¬
tiplication of subdivisions as the highest aim of descriptive zoology,
has made of the Linnean genus Thrips a new order which he calls
Thysanoptera ,” etc. To this Haliday’s answer was: “I am now
quite disposed to acquiesce in Burmeister’s sentence as regards
the particular case, and I do not feel called on to protest against
the sweeping generality of his obiter dictu m.”

I shall now attempt to bring out the degree of appreciation ac¬
corded by Loew to Haliday’s merit, so far as I can gather traces of
it in his publications and in his correspondence. In several pas¬
sages of his works Loew pays Haliday a due tribute of rec¬
ognition and gratitude. In the Monograph of the European
Ephydrinidae ( “ Neue Beitrage,” Yol. VII, 1860, p. 2 at bottom),
Loew regrets that Stenhammar (1844) had not made use of the val¬
uable work of his predecessor Haliday, “ who, for many years, has
made a successful study of the British species ; . . . the results have
been incorporated in Walker’s ‘ British Diptera,’ and constitute, in
the shape in which they appear in the Appendix to the third
volume (p. 343-346), the most finished and perfect work on the
systematic arrangement of this family in existence at present.”
A similar acknowledgment will be found in Loew’s paper on
Dolichopodidae ( “ Neue Beitrage,” Yol. V, 1857, p. 1 ) : “ One of the
principal publications in the domain of dipterology during the
past year is the ‘ Insecta Britannica. Diptera,’ by Walker, now
completed with the third volume. An invitation to publish a
review of this work (which appeared since in the Natural His¬
tory Review') offered me the occasion to make a thorough study

53

HALID AY AND LOEW

of this work. I was always particularly attracted by the family
of Dolichopodidae , which, worked up by Mr. A. II. Haliday in
Dublin, is the most finished portion of this publication. It
deserved a detailed study, and has furnished me with much in¬
formation. A very interesting, and for me most instructive,
correspondence with ITaliclay himself, which, besides being an
interchange of ideas on many other points concerning classifica¬
tion, was principally devoted to the systematic distribution of the
Dolichopodidae , convinced me of the necessity of a further de¬
velopment of this distribution, and of a more precise definition of
the genera hitherto uncertain and unsteady.” This tribute to
Haliday did not prevent Loew from exhibiting his own egotism in
the “ Monograph of the Dolichopodidae ” (“ Monographs of North
American Diptera,” Vol. II, 1864). In this volume, intended prin¬
cipally for America, all the genera are treated as if they were his
own; the real authors, Meigen, Macquart, Zetterstedt, Stannius,
Wahlberg, etc., are not mentioned at all. Haliday’s genera Aphro-
sylus (p. 148) and Campsicnemus (p. 193) will appear to the reader
as if they were Loew’s. The occasion when Haliday’s name is
mentioned (p. 148) is when Loew discards the generic name
Machaerium Hal. published in 1831 and illustrated by a beau¬
tiful figure, in order to replace it by a new name, S mil iotas
Loew, and that, under the unfair pretext of the former name being
preoccupied in botany ! In the preface of the same volume
(p. iv) Haliday’s name is introduced in a purely perfunctory manner.
Thus for the mere gratification of his vanity, Loew has deprived his
readers of the advantage of finding in his work the history of
the different genera, and has unnecessarily exposed them to the
risk of a vexatious bibliographical search.

Another compliment was paid by Loew to Haliday in the Wien.
Ent. Monats., 1864, p. 124, where he says: “My attention was
first called by Haliday himself to the probable identity of his Tipula
dispar with Tip. pagana Meig., and after a careful inquiry I must
agree with the opinion of this most clear-sighted of entomologists.”
In this instance I must interfere with my own egotism, and intro¬
duce the following explanation: Tip. pagana Meig. (described ori¬
ginally only in the male sex) is very common in autumn in the

HALID AY AND LOEW

59

environs of St. Petersburg, and I had no difficulty in ascertaining
that a female Tipula with abortive wings, which occurred abun¬
dantly in the same localities, was its female. At the same time I
recognized this female in the Tipula dispar Hal. ( Entomological
Mag.j 1832-1838, p. 155), and communicated this identification to
Winnertz, who informed Walker of it. As this happened before
1856, Walker published in his “Ins. Brit. Dipt.,” Vol. Ill, p. 342
(1856) at bottom, in the Errata, the following note: “ Pag ana
Meig. Syn. dispar Hal. — On the authority of Count Osten
Sacken, communicated by Winnertz.” There is no doubt that
Haliday’s communication to Loew was based upon this passage.

Considering all the services rendered by Haliday to Loew, it
would have been the latter’s duty to publish a detailed appreciative
obituary notice of Haliday’s life and especially of his work, after his
death in 1870. Nobody was better fitted for such a task than Loew ;
nevertheless, he did nothing of the kind.

It was probably at the request of Loew that Haliday in his letters com¬
municated to him a series of remarks on the contents of the first volume of
the “ Monographs of North American Diptera ” (1862). I reproduce here some
of these remarks, with the comments necessary for a proper understanding of
them.

(1) To “Monographs,” I, p. 24, Thereuidae. Haliday says: “Why not
Therevidae 1 Tliereva ? It is simply a mistake of Agassiz (“ Nomenclator ”) to cite
Thereua as Latreille’s original form ; and, if it had been so, analogy would
require the correction in v ” (Haliday).

In my “ Catalogue North Amer. Diptera,” 1878, p. 96, and also p. 239, Note
168, I have likewise protested against Loew’s Thereua ; nevertheless Loew con¬
tinued to use it to the very last, without giving any reason for it. I shall insert
here, once for all, the result of my investigation of this matter. Loew has The-
reva in his “ Posen er Dipteren” (1840). Thereua appears for the first time in
the Stett. Ent. Zeit., 1844, p. 126, 127 (passim), in an article on the Leptid
Baryphora. It must have. been suggested to Loew by Agassiz’s “ Nomenclator” in
manuscript, of which the part on Diptera had passed through his hands (as
is proved by the words on the titlepage : recognovit Loew). The printed
text cannot have been in Loew’s hands in 1844, because it contains references
to Eclimus Loew, Haemasson Loew, both of 1844, Nygmatodes Loew, Posthon
Loew, both of 1845. These references were evidently added by Loew himself
in the manuscript. But, after Loew, a philologist overhauled the “ Nomen¬
clator,” and this gave rise to Loew’s complaint in the Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1868,
p. 382, and 1876, p. 209, that he had spoiled his Eclimus , derived from eWiyos
(famished), and not from eK\tiy.ybs (quod restat). As to Thereua, Loew agreed with
the philologist, the more so as Bouchd, in his “Naturgesch. der Insecten,” p. 45,

60

HALIDAY AND LOEW

46 (1834), had written Tliereua , probably on philological grounds. — At any rate,
Haliday was right in restoring Latreille’s original spelling.

(2) “Monographs,” I, p. 33, line 16 from bottom, Loew says: “There is no
possibility, it seems, of discovering any other constant character [than the size of
the tegulae] to distinguish Muscariae Calyptratae from Acalyptratae”; “that
which appears most serviceable was pointed out to me by Mr. Haliday; it is
the transverse suture of the thorax being usually of the same depth on its whole
extent in the Calyptratae, whereas in the Acalyptratae it is generally dis¬
tinct at each side, and imperceptible in the middle.” To this Haliday replies :
“ The character derived from the obliteration of the suture of the mesonotum is
already noticed by Meigen. . . . The Micropezidae, so far as I know, and some
genera which seem to belong to the Ortalidae , have it complete. These exceptions,
however, do not much affect the value of the character.” The only passage in
Meigen that Haliday can have had in view is that in “ Systematische Beschrei-
bung,” Yol. VII, p. 172 (1838), where three divisions of Meigen’s family
Musculae are adopted. Meigen mentions the. “Quernath” [transverse suture]
as the character of the first two divisions, Calyptratae and Anthomyzidae , both
of which have been afterwards united under the common name of Calyptere'es
by Macquart. (Compare 0. S .,Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1896, p. 329.) It is strange that
Macquart does not seem to have known this character when he introduced his
final subdivision in 1843; he does not make any mention of it, and it seems to
have been overlooked ever since, except by Haliday. The term furrow appears
to me more appropriate for this structure than suture; there is no real suture
about it.

(3) “ Monographs,” I, p. 42, Phycodromidae. Haliday says: “ From this family-
name I presume you give the preference to Pliycodroma over Malacomyia, although
the latter is anterior in date. It is a mistake of Agassiz to cite Malacomyia
B.-D., which has no existence.” — I have taken some trouble to interpret this pas¬
sage with the help of a copy of Curtis’s “Guide” (1837), annotated by Halida}7,
which he had sent to Loew in 1855, and which is now in my possession. On page
270 at bottom, under Coelopa sciomyzina Hal., I find a note in Haliday’s handwrit¬
ing: fucorum Zett., with the reference App. 280, which means Appendix to the
“Guide,” p. 280. In this Appendix we find Malacomyia Hal., without any other
reference, and this is the first appearance of this generic name in literature. The
definition of this subgenus is found in Haliday’s article, “New British Insects,” in
Mr. Curtis’s “Guide,” which appeared in Ann. Nat. Hist., Vol. II, 1838, p. 186.
We find there, under Coelopa , the subdivision: “Arista villosa ; epistoma acute
porrecta: Malacomyza [sic! O. S. ], c. App. 280.” The species, answering to
this subgenus is quoted thus: Coelopa sciomyzina, Entomological Magazine, Vol.
I, p. 167 (1832). This reference brings us to Haliday’s “Catalogue of Diptera
about Holywood,” etc., where a detailed description of the species is given.
— The next appearance of Malacomyia sciomyzina is in Westwood’s “Introd.”,
Vol. II (1840), “Generic Synopsis,” etc., p. 144 (the notes to which were pro¬
vided by Haliday); and again in Walker’s “Ins. Brit. Dipt.,” Vol. II, p. 157
(1853). Haliday was right in saying that it was a mistake of Agassiz to refer
Malacomyia to Rob.-Desvoidy (1830), where, on page 651, there is the Tribe
Malacomydae but no genus of that name.

HALIDAY AND LOEW

61

The dates of the Swedish authors are: —

Coelopci fucorum Zett., Dipt. Seand., Yol. VI, p. 2474 (1847).

Phycodroma, gen. nov. Stenh., Handl. K. Vet. Akad., Stockholm, 1854, p. 270;
Separatum: 1855, p. 12. Type: Coelopa fucorum Zett.

Both references are later than Haliday’s, and therefore he was right in vindicat¬
ing his own priority. I find that Rondani, in his “ Sarcophaginae Italicae ” (Atti
di Milano, 1847, p. 131), although under the influence of Haliday at that time,
adopts Phycodroma Stenh. (which he spells Phycodromya ), and places Malacomyia
Hal. 1838 as a synonym. Nevertheless, on the next page, 132, he has: P. liydro-
myzina Hal. 1832 (should be sciomyzina , comp, on the same page, line 8 from top)
with fucorum Zett. 1847 as a synonym. Here, therefore, Rondani recognizes the
priority of Haliday’s publication.

(4) “ Monographs,” I, p. 129, Ephydrinidae. “Analogy would require
Ephydridae ” (Hal.).

Loew adopted this emendation in his later publications ; compare, for instance,
“ Ueber Dipt. Augsb. Gegend,” 1869, p. 47 ; also in Perl. Ent. Zeit., 1876,
p. 76.

(5) “ Monographs,” I, p. 149, line 16. Haliday corrects: “beneath the
eyes” into “beneath the antennae,” which is right.

Concerning the venation, Haliday observes about the origin of the auxiliary
vein (“ Monographs,” I, p. xvi, lines 20-22) : “ Does not the auxiliary vein arise
from the second main trunk ? ” Loew had stated that it issues from the
first.

About the English of the “Monographs,” Haliday said in the same letter : “ It
is always intelligible, although not always correct.” His corrections are numerous,
and display a remarkable grammatical acumen, but it would be superfluous to re¬
produce them here.

A short account of the relations of Iialiday with Rondani will
be found in my Chapter XIX.

I regret that I never met Haliday. In 1869 I sent him by post
from New York to Lucca, where he resided at that time, a copy of
my second “ Monograph of the Tipulidae brevipalpi ” which had
just been published. The parcel never reached him, but he re¬
ceived the letter accompanying it, and expressed his regrets at the
loss in a letter dated February 15, 1869. He died in July, 1870,
and thus I lost the opportunity of meeting him during the winter
I spent in Italy two years later.

Besides my gleanings from the letters of Haliday to Loew re¬
produced in the present chapter, I found in these letters some very
interesting remarks and suggestions in regard to classification. I
have reserved them for my Chapter XVI: “Characterization of
Loew as a Dipterologist. ”

62

HALIDAY AND LOEW

The list of Haliday’s publications, up to 1857, will be found in
Hagen’s “ Bibliotheca Entomologica,” Vol. I, p. 334-336. A paper
which I possess has been omitted in this list : —

“ Recent Works on the Diptera of Northern Europe” ( Natural
History Review , Vol. II, p. 49-61, July, 1855).

Haliday seems to have published very little after 1857. I gather
from the “Obituary Notice” (in the Ent. Monthly Mag., London,
1870, p. 91) that Haliday’s health compelled him, about 1860, to
“seek the more genial climate of Italy,” that he settled in Lucca,
and that, although he continued to show the liveliest interest in
entomology, “ his contributions to entomological literature have
been few.” Of Haliday’s publications after 1857, I possess: —

“ Relazione sul Baco dell’ Oliva. — Estratta dall’ Agricoltore, peri¬
odic© mensile del Comizio Agrario Lucchese.” Lucca, 1868. (The
subject is, of course, JDacus oleae.')

In 1869 Haliday translated into Italian Loew’s paper on Blepha-
roceridae , which appeared in the Bull. Soc. Ent. Ital., Vol. I, April,
1869. He added to it a postscript, entitled “ Note sulla prece-
dente memoria del Prof. Loew ” (p. 99-101).

The portrait of A. II. Haliday is taken from an old photograph,
kindly supplied by Prof. E. P. Wright of Dublin University. A
block was made and a cliche forwarded to me. For this generosity
I feel bound to express to Professor Wright my most heartfelt
thanks ! Mr. G. H. Carpenter (Science and Art Museum, Kildare
Street, Dublin), to whose friendly mediation I owe this privilege,
informs me at the same time that a large collection of letters to
Haliday from Loew, Rondani, and other entomologists are also in
the possession of Professor Wright ! This will be good news for
future workers on the same subject, but it comes too late for me to
profit by it.

Alexander H. Haliday

LOEW S WORK ON AMBER DIPTERA

63

IX ON LOEW’S WORK ON AMBER DIPTERA IN GENERAL, AND
ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS ULTIMATE FAILURE

This chapter is principally based on my personal experience
(including my correspondence with Loew), and, I trust, will throw
some light upon this otherwise very obscure subject.

In undertaking the work of describing Amber Diptera, Loew was
laboring under the strange delusion that fossil forms could be
described before the classification of recent ones had reached a
sufficient degree of development. Among the Amber Diptera, the
Tipulidae , owing to the variety of their plastic characters, espe¬
cially in their venation and in the structure of their antennae, afford
the easiest field for study, and for this reason it was to this family
that Loew gave the greatest development in his work of 1850
(“Ueber den Bernstein und die Bernstein-Fauna ”). He distin¬
guished eighteen genera in Amber, among which ten were new,
and the rest were identified with recent forms. Unfortunately for
Loew, the classification of the recent Tipulidae was, in 1850, in a
chaotic condition. Before beginning his work, he should have at
least prepared himself for it by a careful study of the contemporary
literature on the recent forms of Tipulidae. His publication shows
that, in this respect, he had not done his duty, otherwise he would
not have committed the mistake of describing as new the Amber
genus Allarithmia, but would have recognized in it the recent genus
E, • iocera , described by Macquart twelve years before. Loew had
remained in ignorance of Macquart’s genus still later, when, in
Peters’s “ Ileise in Mozambique,” he described a species of the same
genus as a Limnobia, although he had noticed its anomalous anten¬
nae, which should have reminded him of his own fossil Allarithmia d

1 In extenuation of this mistake of Loew’s it may be alleged that, although Dr.
Peters’s volume was dated 1862, it had been printed ten years before, in 1852 (comp.
Hagen, “Bibl. Entom.,” Vol. II, p. 886, Addenda, under Loew, No. 136). Loew’s share
in that volume may therefore have been written almost contemporaneously with his
paper of 1850. Nevertheless, there is no excuse for his not having been aware of the
existence of Friocera Macq. (1838), and for bis having said : “ The remarkably anomalous
structure of the antennae of this species does not permit its being placed in any of the
subgenera that have been separated from Limnobia. This structure of the antennae is

64

LOEW’S WORK ON AMBER DIPTERA

My special study of Tipulidae brought with it the duty of criti¬
cising Loew’s paper of 1850. In the “ Monographs of North Amer¬
ican Diptera,” Vol. IV, p. 192 and 293 (1869), after having seen the
original Amber specimens in Loew’s collection, I pointed out that
the four species of Cylindrotoma , which Loew believed to have
recognized in Amber, were Limnophilae. This error of his is the
more strange as, only a year before 1850 (in the Stett. Ent. Zeit .,
1849, p. 341), he had published a correct account of the genus
Cylindrotoma. In describing C. nigriventris, from Siberia, he had
stated that C. distinct issima should be considered as the type of
the genus, and that the other two species introduced into it by
Macquart (its founder, 1834) did not belong to it.

In Chapter II of this “ Record ” I have shown how, several years
later, Loew had paid very little attention to my classification of
Tipulidae (that of 1859), and had, with my work in his hand, mis¬
taken a Teucholabis (O. S.) for a Rhamphidia. In my second
monograph of Tipulidae (1869) I had therefore every reason to
caution the public against the uncritical acceptance of the four
species of Rhamphidia which Loew believed to have discovered in
Amber, as well as against the other genera in his paper on Amber
Tipulidae (O. S. in “Monographs,” Vol. IV, p. 105, about Rham¬
phidia , and p. 192-193 about the other genera). No wonder that
with such an insufficient knowledge of the Tipulidae Loew should
have mixed up two altogether different genera: his fossil Toxor-
rhina (1850) and his recent Toxorrhina (1851). In this case, he
had been led astray by the extraordinary long, filiform proboscis,
common to both, without noticing that the recent species has a
venation unique among Tipulidae, while his fossil Toxorrhina has
a normal venation.

When I questioned Loew concerning the principles he had fol¬
lowed in establishing his genera of fossil Tipulidae, he gave me (in
a letter of February 5, 1865) a rather long, but very unsatisfactory
explanation, which he summed up thus : “ I had hoped in this way

somewhat like that of Anisomera, but the discal cell is closed, while it is wanting in the
latter genus. This species can undoubtedly be considered as the type of a new genus,
which it will be time enough to describe when the male is discovered” (Peters’s
“ Reise,” etc., p. 2 of the separate on Diptera).

LOEW’S WORK ON AMBER DIPTERA

65

to obtain genera in which even a non-entomologist might easily
locate his fossil species, and I also thought that, by this means, I
should by and by obtain easily distinguishable genera for living
species.” 1

The meaning of the first part of this sentence is plain enough ;
such genera were intended for amateur-collectors of fossil Amber
species, and for the purpose of affording them the pleasure of
affixing names to them. But the second part of the sentence,
that Loew hoped in this way to get at the right definitions of genera
for living species, is incomprehensible. He felt the weakness of
his reasoning and concluded in a jocular tone : “ I had no doubt
that such genera would be only provisional , because, with such a
small equipment of characters, one could not expect better genera,
but I consoled myself with the reflection that all our systematic
work is merely provisional.” It would be superfluous to say that
this coeur leger manner of treating a question is not the way of
solving it. But it is evident at the same time that if Loew, before
beginning his work on fossil Tipulidae , had made a thorough pre¬
liminary study of the living forms, he would have discovered,
among the mass of fossil specimens at his disposal, a sufficiency of
characters for introducing more satisfactory genera. In the mean¬
time Loew, as it seems, was preparing the publication of his de¬
tailed work on Amber Diptera, some plates of which he had shown
me in 1865. He wrote me (July 24, 1867) : “ I believe that the first
part will be ready for publication (‘ druckfertig ’) before Michaelmas
(September 29, 1867).” This communication, I confess, astonished
me, because Loew must have known when I saw him in 1865 that
the manuscript he had prepared for the plates (and especially for
the Tipulidae') was not in a condition fit for publication.

A long interval elapsed after this communication, and, Loew’s
expectations notwithstanding, the “ Amber Diptera ” had remained
unpublished. Eleven years later Loew, already broken by age and
sickness, in a letter from Guben (February, 1878) gave me the follow¬
ing explanation : “ I should have been very glad at last to pub-

1 “ Ich hoffte so Gattungen zu erhalten, in welehen auch der Nicht-Entomolog die
fossilen Arten leiclit unterbringen kbnnte, und daelite von da aus spiiter einmal zu
Gattungen fur lebende Arten zu kornmen, deren Unterscheidung leiclit ware.”

6

66

LOEW’S WORK ON AMBER DIPTERA

lisli the whole work on Amber Diptera, which cost me so much
study and labor ; but it seems that I must definitively give it up.
Although the Physico-Economic Society of Konigsberg had agreed
(‘hat sich verpflichtet ’) to publish this work, it has never made
any step towards the fulfilment of this promise, so that a large
portion of the letter-press and of the copper-plates which were
submitted to the Society many years ago are still awaiting pub¬
lication. I wish you would make up your mind sometime to un¬
dertake a revision of the family of Amber Tipulidae in its totality ;
the figures of all the species are drawn, and the necessary data for
preparing descriptions are ready (‘ die notigen Notizen zu den
Beschreibungen gemacht’). To produce a useful and available
publication would require the overhauling of all the species with
regard to those characters which would qualify them for being
located in your systematic arrangement, and to bring the generic
names introduced by me into harmony with those that are used
now for the recent ones. Such a working up would surely bring
new light into the genetic connection of the genera and the dis¬
tribution of their species.” I answered this letter from Florence
(April 7, 1878) and said: “ I shall reflect upon your proposal to
revise the Amber Tipulidae. The task would be most interesting
for me, because hitherto I have had but a very superficial view
of them.” Loew’s answer to this letter was dated April 21, 1878,
a year, day for day, before his death. It gives a striking picture
of his state of mind at that time, and an insight into the final col¬
lapse of the unfortunate Amber Diptera business. The letter was
either dictated, or copied by another hand, because the rather
tremulous signature alone was in Loew’s handwriting. I translate
a portion of it verbatim : —

“Gcben, April 21, 1878.

“Your letter of April 7 reached me a few days ago. I followed your
journey with interest, and envied you the enjoyment you were having.
The Tertiary Diptera from Aix in Provence have interested me in former
times [1 had examined some of them in the Museum of Marseille. — 0. S.],
and have been the subject of many researches. I have had occasion to
examine attentively, under the eye of Ileer, the species described by him.
The remarks which I published about them in the Zeitschr. gesammi.

LOEW’S WORK OX AMBER DIPTERA

67

Naturw 18G8, are true to this day.1 The determinations of Ileer reveal
a rather clear systematic eye, hut they are not based upon any trust¬
worthy plastic characters, so that most of the new genera introduced by
him are not tenable, for they coincide with other well-known genera.
In general most of the species represented in Aix come very near the
Amber Diptera. That, on account of my failing strength, I am compelled
to give up entirely my laborious work of many years on the Amber
Diptera is to me a subject of great grief. I had hoped that one or the
other of my dipterological friends would feel inclined to bring the work to
completion in making use of the drawings executed by me with endless care,
and of the colossal material of Amber specimens at that time still piled up
around these drawings. I can truly say that I have not spared the most
urgent entreaties for that purpose, but a willing ear I have nowhere found.
To see a painstaking work, the fruit of years of application, treated with
utter disregard is most depressing. It drove me long ago to the settled
resolve not to go a step farther, but to return to their owners all the speci¬
mens confided to me for the sake of description. And even in this under¬
taking I am sometimes having unpleasant experiences, as many people do
not seem to understand the advantage they have in receiving (instead of
unclassified, and often unpolished, rough fragments) polished specimens, for
the most part accurately named. I shall feel happy when this painful
business is finally and completely wound up. If yon had consented last
year, and at my urgent request, to undertake the working up of the Amber
Tipulidae , the whole rich material would have been kept together, and I
would have placed it all, including the drawings, in your hands. At pres¬
ent, it is unfortunately impossible, and I can dispose of the drawings only,
not of the original specimens. Should you think, nevertheless, that you can
make use of the drawings alone, we can yet discuss the matter.”

In this case Loew’s memory failed him completely, because it
was not a year, blit only a month before, that he had made me the
offer to work upon the Amber Tipulidae ; a task which, far from
refusing, I had accepted in the very letter referred to above of
April 7th, which he was answering on the 21st! Thus an unfor¬
tunate concatenation of circumstances has prevented me from
making a more detailed study of Amber Diptera. I had visited

1 This passage refers to the article : “ Berichtigung der generischen Bestimmung
einiger fossilen Dipteren ” ( Zeitschr . (jesammt. Naturw., 1868). Loew, prompted by
the publication of Oswald Ileer and L. v. Heyden on fossil Bihionidae, in which
several useless new genera had been introduced, recommended some common-sense
rules to be observed in describing fossil Diptera, rules which he himself had not ob¬
served in 1850, and which are still neglected in some recent publications on this subject.

cs

NOTICES ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE “ MONOGRAPHS

Guben in 1871 (November 3-5) and in 1872 (August 23-25), but
I was pressed for time, and two days would not have been sufficient
for the work. In 1877, when I spent fifteen days there, I was en¬
tirely absorbed by the business of packing up the North American
collection. So far as I remember, Loew at that time did not
even mention the Amber business to me, and the state of his health
made him incapable of unpacking the Amber collection. Of that
visit I have given a detailed account to Mr. Alexander Agassiz in
a letter which is reproduced below in my Chapter XII, in my
account of the transfer of the collection. What became of all
the plates and manuscripts prepared by Loew I do not know, and,
for the reason stated in Chapter XIV, “ I felt that I had neither
the right nor the duty to inquire.”

X NOTICES ON SOME FACTS CONNECTED WITH THE PUBLICA¬
TION OF THE SUCCESSIVE VOLUMES OF THE “ MONOGRAPHS
OF NORTH AMERICAN DIPTERA ”

1 On my share in translating f rom the German, and in editing , the
three volumes of Loeufs “ Monographs of North American Dip-
tera ”

In my “ Introduction ” and in Chapter I, “ On the Beginnings,”
etc., I have given a general account of the modus operandi of
my co-operation with Loew in the publication of his three vol¬
umes of the “ Monographs.” I deem it necessary now to give
some further explanations, which principally concern my share in
translating Loew’s volumes.

In the Preface to the first volume (p. v) Loew says : “ As to
the English text, I use, it is true, the assistance and advice of a
friend, who is well acquainted with the English language ; should,
nevertheless, some roughness occur, I beg that it may be attributed
to some supplementary alterations of my own, which circum¬
stances prevented me from submitting to him,” etc. When the
manuscript reached me, I found that the English of it was unfit
for publication. I remember, for instance, that “Ilinterleib” was
translated “ hindback ” instead of “ abdomen.” By no means master
of the English language myself, I had a great deal of trouble in

NOTICES ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE “MONOGRAPHS

69

correcting it, and the result left much to be desired. In con¬
sequence, I wrote to Loew that I should prefer, in future, to have
the manuscript in German, and that I would take care to have it
translated in America. This was actually done with Vol. II.

1 entrusted the task to a translator. He did the routine work of
translating the descriptions of the species, for which purpose I had
drawn up for him a German-English glossary, and I did the rest,
that is, translating the preface, the introduction, the descriptions
of the genera, etc. But I soon felt that, even with this method,
there was too much drudgery for me to undergo in collating and
correcting the translation. For this reason, when the different
portions of Vol. Ill were, one after the other, sent to me, I found
it easier to translate them myself. The editing and proof-reading of
the first two volumes were done by myself ; the third volume was
edited by my friend Dr. R. A. Witthaus of New York, during my
absence in Europe. Before being struck off, the sheets passed, of
course, through the hands of the authorities of the Smithsonian
Institution. All these details, as well as the dates of publication,
are mentioned in the “ Advertisements ” of Prof. Joseph Henry on
the reverse of the titlepage of each volume.

2 On the long delay attending the 'publication of the third volume
of the “ Monographs of North American Diptera ”

The “ Advertisement ” signed by Prof. Joseph Henry on the
verso of the titlepage of Loew’s Vol. Ill (December, 1873)
of the “ Monographs of North American Diptera ” shows that this
volume appeared nearly five years after Vol. IV (January, 1869),
which contained my “Monograph on Tipulidae brevipalpi.”

During my visit to Meseritz in 1865, Loew told me that the
Ortalidae were ready for publication; he repeated this assurance
in a letter dated January 31, 1866: “ I told you, when I had the

pleasure of seeing you, that for the third volume of the ‘ Mono¬
graphs ’ the Ortalidae were ready. In the hope of obtaining more
material I had delayed, for some time, to make a fair copy of them.
This expectation not having been fulfilled, I have long ago be¬
gun to write out the manuscript in its final form, and to prepare

70 NOTICES ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE “MONOGRAPHS”

a fair copy of it, and at present I am very near the end of this
task. The work will nearly fill a volume. The ‘Additions ’ to
the Trypetae , prepared long ago, might be added to it. This
would furnish plenty of matter for Yol. III. But, how about its
publication ? Do you still feel interested enough in this work
to undertake the great burden (‘ die grosse Last ’) of translating
it? Still less am I sure how I am standing with the Smithsonian
Institution.” Loew complains about some remissness, on the
part of the Institution, in the fulfilment of its engagements towards
him, of an apparent want of appreciation of his work, etc., and
ends by saying: —

“ I want at least to know whether the Institution intends to con¬
tinue the publication of the ‘ Monographs,’ and whether I should
consider myself authorized to order the necessary plates at its
expense.” Loew had no reason whatever to doubt of my good
will, nor of the interest taken in his work by the Smithsonian
Institution. I referred his complaints to Professor Baird, who
(March 16, 1866) gave me the necessary explanations and assur¬
ances, and added : “ As to the failure to send him a commendatory
letter, remember the immense amount of the work we have to do,
and the small force to do it with. We trusted to you as our confi¬
dential adviser to arrange all such matters with Loew, and trust
you will do so, excusing our delay on account of the war, the fire,
the flood, and anything else,” etc.

Under the circumstances which I have just related it might
have been expected that Yol. Ill would make its appearance
soon. Nevertheless, more than eight years elapsed between the
summer of 1865, when Loew told me that the manuscript of the
Ortalidae was ready for publication, and December of 1873, when
the third volume made its appearance before the public.

What was the cause of Loew’s hesitation to publish a manu¬
script so far advanced in preparation as he announced it to be?
Was he perhaps dissatisfied with its execution, but, at the same
time, unwilling to acknowledge it? The fact is, that later he
seems to have entirely rewritten it, and this was no doubt due to
the mass of new material that I had sent him in the meantime
(especially in Trypetae'). It would be useless and tedious to

NOTICES ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE “ MONOGRAPHS

71

reproduce the long story of this delay, and of the excuses and
apologies offered by Loew for it. Some of them were well
founded : illness of himself and family (1866) ; the Austro-Prus-
sian war, in which his three sons were engaged ; his retirement
from his position in Meseritz and his moving to Guben (1868).
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Loew during these years did
not relax his usual ardor in describing new species of Diptera.
The “ Centuries of North American Diptera ” continued to appear:
Century VI (1865), VII (1866), VIII, IX (1869), X (1870). The
Prefaces of the new, large work, undertaken by Loew, “ Beschrei-
bungen europaischer Dipteren,” are dated, that of Vol. I, October,
1868; that of Vol. II, December, 1870. Besides these works, the
list of Loew’s papers contains between 1865 and 1870 about fifty
numbers, representing publications in the Berl. Eat. Zeit ., Wien.
Eat. 3fonats., Zeitschr. gesammt. Naturw., Zeitschr. Entoni. Schles.
Ver ., Jahrb. Gel. Ges. in Krakau , Bull. Soc. Ent. Ital ., and in
several other periodicals. The truth is, that Loew was much
averse to monographic work on a larger scale, requiring long
preliminary studies and a mental concentration possible only in
a state of repose. lie much preferred work of a kind that he
could take up or put down at any time, I mean the work of pro¬
ducing a large number of short, disconnected articles, such as
descriptions of new species, critical summaries of small groups
of Diptera, local lists of species, etc. This manner of work may
have been easier and more handy for him in his circumstances, and
among the multitude of various occupations which his insatiable
energy required. But, if such was the case, he should at least
have been candid about it, and have openly avowed his preference ;
and it would have been an easy matter to make arrangements to
suit him.

I had written down the above paragraph for some time, when, in looking
over Loew’s correspondence, T came across the following passage which confirms
exactly what I have been saying. Loew's letter is dated February 5, 1865, that is,
before my visit to him during the summer of the same year : “ I believe that we

shall, ultimately, agree on this point, that although this kind of publication [the
Centuries] is inferior in quality to the publication in ‘ Monographs,’ it offers the
advantage of a rapid publication of many new species. And the reason is, that
every attempt at determination which proves the species to be new becomes at

72

NOTICES ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE “MONOGRAPHS

once a stimulus for immediately describing it, while the preparation of a mono¬
graph requires a more prolonged leisure (‘eine zusammenhangendere Musse’).”
Unfortunately this frank statement came at a time when the third volume of the
“ Monographs ” had been already announced, the plates, sent to Washington, had
been printed, and remained for years waiting for the letter-press, delayed by the
waywardness of Loew. At the end of Athat time, as will be seen below, it was
too late to think of a new arrangement.

In August, 1871, I again sailed for Europe, and paid a visit to
Loew in November of that year. I must have impressed upon him
the necessity of doing something for Vol. Ill, because I find in my
letters that I received a first instalment of the manuscript in
Baden-Baden in January, 1872, just before returning to New York.
Among the letters of Professor Baird to me, I find one compli¬
menting me on my return. I reproduce its beginning, as it con¬
tains an allusion to my interview with Loew: “ Washington, D.C.,
February 16, 1872. I was delighted to find by your letter that you
had returned to the United States and hope we may keep you here
as a permanent investment. We cannot spare men, like yourself,
who, besides their own merits as naturalists, do so much to bring
together persons of kindred tastes, who otherwise would never
meet or come into correspondence. I am glad you interviewed
Loew and got the promise of more manuscript. We have had, as
you know, a number of plates printed off for years, which we shall
be glad to utilize.”

In Baden, upon receiving the manuscript, I immediately began
translating it, and continued my work during my journey, and
even during my very rough winter passage across the ocean, in the
French steamer “ Pdreire,” which reached New York, February 4,
1872.1 In July of the same year I again returned to Europe, and re¬
ceived from Loew the last part of the manuscript on the Ortalidae ,
the translation of which I at once made and sent to Washington.
In the meantime I remained for more than a year in Europe. The
translation of Vol. Ill went to press in February, 1873, and the edit¬
ing, in my absence, was done by a friend of mine in New York (see
above, p. 69). The manuscript of the Trypetae , which, had to appear

1 My eyes were so much affected by the air in the saloon of the steamer, closely
shut up during the winter passage, that on my arrival in New York I had to consult
an oculist.

NOTICES ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE “ MONOGRAPHS ”

73

in the same volume, was still wanting. Constant urging on my part
made Loew finish it in great haste, and it reached me in London
just before my embarking again for the United States. I trans¬
lated it as fast as I could, and thus the long-expected volume was
published in December, 1873. (Compare the “ Advertisement” of
Professor Henry on the reverse of the titlepage.) Although numer¬
ous corrections w'ere introduced in translating and proof-reading,
the haste in which the original manuscript was written may have
left some traces in the text of Vol. III.

3 The Smithsonian conflagration in 1865

On January 25, 1865, at my breakfast table in my lodgings in
New York, I received the first notice of the Smithsonian conflagra¬
tion when the New York Herald was brought with a conspicu¬
ous heading : “ Fire in the Smithsonian Institution ! Baron Osten
Sacken’s manuscript burned.” This was the manuscript of the
fourth volume of the “Monographs of North American Diptera,”
which had cost me a great deal of labor. A few days later I re¬
ceived from Prof. Joseph Henry, who was at the head of the Institu¬
tion at that time, a letter announcing the loss to me. I reproduce
it in extenso as an interesting historical document : —

Smithsonian Institution, Saturday, Feb. 4, 1865.

My dear Sir, — It is with very great regret that I have to inform you
that your Memoir on the Limnobina was entirely destroyed by fire, which
took place in the Smithsonian building on the afternoon of January 24. It
was burned in company with nearly all the official correspondence and rec¬
ords of the establishment. We trust, however, that this disaster will prove
but a temporary inconvenience to you, and that you have retained such
original drafts of the several parts of the Memoir as will enable you, with
the help of a scribe, to reproduce it.

I am pleased to be able to inform you that the conflagration will not
materially affect the essential operations of the Institution. The valuable
library, the richest in this country in scientific books, the extensive collec¬
tion of specimens intended for distribution, the Museum of the Exploring
Expedition, the stereotype plates of the later publications, are all saved.
The loss of the greatest importance is that of the contents of my office, in¬
cluding upwards of thirty thousand pages of copies of letters exclusively of
my own composition.

74

DR. HERMANN AUGUST HAGEN

The loss of the building can scarcely be considered a calamity, since it
would probably have taken fire at some future time, when the contents of
the rooms below would be much more valuable. The building has been
from the first a source of much trouble and expense, and should not have
been erected. The Smithsonian Institution is a cosmopolitan establishment,
and should not be burthened with the support of a local Museum and a
large building. Congress will, I think, in due time take the Museum and
the building off our hands, and leave the income of the Smithsonian fund
to be entirely devoted to the advancement of science. I remain, etc.,

Joseph Henry.

About this loss of mine I published the following statement,
which I find in a paper that appeared a few weeks after the confla¬
gration, and contained some fragments of the manuscript that had
escaped the fire1: “Unfortunately, I had retained no copy. An¬
ticipating a voyage to Europe early in the spring, I had hoped to
see the manuscript go through the press before that time, and, hurry¬
ing to get it ready, did not stop to have it copied. . . . Except the
fragments which I publish here, I have absolutely nothing in hand
now, and the whole work will have to be done over again,” etc.

The loss did not, in the end, turn out to be a loss to science.
During a journey to Europe which I undertook soon after it had
happened, I gained a great deal of information in the museums I
visited, and that proved a benefit to the work when I reproduced
it afterwards. The volume appeared in January, 1869, and in the
Preface, signed by me in April, 1868, 1 do not even find any mention
of the conflagration.

XI DR. HERMANN AUGUST HAGEN

Hermann August Hagen was born on May 30, 1817, in Konigs-
berg, Eastern Prussia, and died in Cambridge, Mass., November 9,
1893.

I made Dr. Hagen’s acquaintance on my way to North America,
in the spring of 1856, an acquaintance which soon became a life-long
friendship.2 I encouraged Hagen to publish a work on the Neu-
roptera of North America, and, during my residence in the United

1 Proc. Ent. Soc. Philadelphia, April, 1865, p. 224 (26, 1865).

2 Compare my “ Introduction,” p. 2.

DR. HERMANN AUGUST HAGEN

75

States, I sent him all the material I could get hold of. Besides
the Neuroptera of my own collecting, an important contribution
was the rich collection of the Odonata from Pecos River, Western
Texas, made by the Exploring Expedition of Capt. J. Pope, U. S. A.,
which the Smithsonian Institution upon my suggestion sent to Dr.
Hagen. The result of these contributions was his important publi¬
cation, “ Synopsis of the Neuroptera of North America,” Washing¬
ton, Smithsonian Institution, July, 1861. On the reverse of the
title page the “Advertisement” of Prof. Joseph Henry, Secretary of
the Institution, says : “ The manuscript of this work was furnished
by Dr. Hagen in Latin, and it has been translated into English by
Mr. P. R. Uhler of Baltimore. To him and to Baron R. Osten
Sacken the Institution is under obligations for the careful examina¬
tion and correction of the proof sheets.” In the Preface Dr. Hagen
mentions, among the collections which he received, “ the very nu¬
merous species collected by Baron Osten Sacken in different parts
of the United States, particularly at Washington, at Trenton Falls,
at Savannah and Dalton in Georgia, at Berkeley Springs in Vir¬
ginia, in Florida, in Cuba, on the St. Lawrence River, and at
Chicago.”

In a letter from Konigsberg, dated November 15, 1859, Dr. Hagen
acknowledged the arrival of one of my consignments, and added:
“It may interest you to have a survey of all your consignments,
of which I have kept an accurate account, except the first, the
number of specimens of which is given approx imatively : —

“ First consign, from you about 137 spec., from the Smiths. Inst, about 170; total, 300

“ Second, Nov., 1858,
“ Third, April, 1859,
“ Fourth, June, 1859,
“ Fifth, Oct., 1859,

Total,

260

96

38

275

806

other persons

431;

691

96

38

275

1400

“ The specimens preserved in spirits were not counted, so that
the total reaches far beyond 1500 specimens.”

Among these materials was the very rare Panorpid, Metope tuber Newm.,
which I had had the good fortune to obtain in both sexes, the very extraordinary
male, with its immense forceps, having been unknown before. Hagen called it 1
“perhaps the most remarkable of all hitherto known Neuroptera.”

1 “ Synopsis,” p. 249.

76

DR. HERMANN AUGUST HAGEN

I found the female Merope tuber in the summer of 1856, one evening, by lamp¬
light on the wall of the veranda of the hotel in Berkeley Springs, Ya. A little
later I obtained the male (unknown before) in the collection of the Museum of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Professor Leidy was showing me a
box of promiscuous unnamed insects, among which I noticed the specimen. Hav¬
ing called his attention to this remarkable form he authorized me to add it
to the collection of Neuroptera which I was preparing to send to Dr. Hagen.
(These facts are not mentioned in Hagen’s “Synopsis.”) Merope tuber seems to
be a very rare insect. Upon my request, Mr. William Beutenmiiller of New
York sent me (April, 1901) the following information about its occurrence since
my time : “ In a paper by James S. Hine, entitled ‘ A Review of the Panor-
pidae of America North of Mexico,’ 1 Merope tuber is recorded from Maine, Penn¬
sylvania, New York, and District of Columbia. He states that he has seen two
males and three females.”

Such was the result for my friend Hagen of the first three
years of my residence in the United States.

In 1867 Prof. Louis Agassiz decided to appoint Dr. Hagen Cus¬
todian of the entomological collection which he was forming in the
Museum at Cambridge, Mass., a post which Hagen occupied until
his death in 1893. As I had had some influence upon Professor
Agassiz’s choice, he wrote me, while I was in Europe, in May, 1873 :
“ Plus nous avanyons et plus je m’estime heureux d’avoir d6cou-
vert le Dr. Hagen, et d’avoir rflussi a l’attacher au Mus6e. Par
ses soins, notre collection entomologique prend tous les jours plus
de consistance, a mesure qu’elle s'arrange et se developpe,” etc.

Hagen, like Loew, was a Hercules of working power, but a Her¬
cules whose only ambition was to be useful, and to fulfil conscien¬
tiously what he considered as his duty. I often thought that, in
some cases, he carried this sense of self-sacrifice too far, and that he
sometimes, like the mythological Hercules, good-naturedly under¬
took to sweep some entomological Augean stable, which he might
have left to be cleansed by some other person whose time was less
valuable than his. A monument of his learning, conscientiousness,
and marvellous endurance is his “ Bibliotheca Entomologica,” in
two volumes (1862-1863). In a letter which Loew wrote me at
that time (June, 1861) I find this characteristic passage: “When
I see Hagen trudging along with his fifty pounds of manuscript,
from town to town, and from library to library, I think to myself,
this is not the kind of work I ivould have undertaken .”

1 “ Univ. Bull. Ohio State University,” Series V, No. 7.

TRANSFER OF LOEW’S COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

77

A biographical notice of Hagen by Mr. Samuel Henshaw ap¬
peared in the Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, Vol. XXIX. His domestic life is described in this
short sentence : “ Of Dr. Hagen’s domestic life it is sufficient to
record here that in 1851 he married Johanna Maria Elise Ger-
hards, who survives him.” As a friend and sincere admirer of
Mrs. Hagen I feel bound to complete this insufficient notice of her.
About Dr. Hagen’s death Mr. Henshaw’s biographical notice says:
“ Stricken with paralysis in September, 1890, Dr. Hagen lingered
for more than three years ; his painful sufferings being lightened
by all that affectionate and devoted care could do.” A letter from
a friend of mine, who lives in Cambridge, and who announced to
me, at that time, the death of Hagen, contains the following pas¬
sage : “ His wife’s devotion, strength, and cheerfulness have been
simply magnificent. For more than three years she never once
spent six hours, winter or summer, away from the house. She had
to lift him, move him in his bed, dress him, and never once flagged
or faltered. She seems surprisingly fresh and healthy-minded after
all she has gone through, and is certainly an admirable woman.”

A short obituary notice was also published in Psyche, Febru¬
ary, 1894.

After Hagen’s death, Mrs. Hagen returned to Konigsberg, in
Prussia, her husband’s residence before his removal to the United
States.

XII AX ACCOUNT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE
TRANSFER OF THE COLLECTION OF NORTH AMERICAN
DIPTERA ACCUMULATED IN THE HANDS OF LOEW
FROM GUBEN, HIS RESIDENCE, TO THE MUSEUM IN
CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

In the “ Introduction ” (p. 8) I said that “ one of the first duties
I had to fulfil, after my return to Europe (in 1877), was to go to
Guben, the residence of Loew, and to secure the shipment to the
United States of the large collection of North American Diptera
which, for the last twenty years, had been accumulating in his
hands,” and contained the types of his descriptions. I shall now

73

TRANSFER OF LOEW’S COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

give a detailed account of the whole transaction. For the facts I
rely upon the collection of the letters of Loew to me between 1871
and 1879, and upon my own letters to him during that period,
of all of which I possess the originals,1 and on my letters to the two
Agassiz, of which I have retained rough drafts.

These drafts may not be verbatim reproductions of my original letters,
which perhaps still exist in the archives of the Museum of Comparative Zoology
in Cambridge, Mass., for the reason that in making a fair copy of a letter, I often
introduce changes which are not always found in the original draft ; but, as to
facts, the drafts are of course trustworthy.

As I said in the “Introduction” (p. 7), after resigning in 1871
my post of Consul General of Russia in New York, I spent a part
of the two following years in Europe. Before leaving the United
States, I had, with the permission of Prof. Louis Agassiz, deposited
my own collection of North American Diptera in the Museum in
Cambridge, Mass. I also had had a conversation with him and his
son, Mr. Alexander Agassiz, about my plans concerning the large
collection of North American Diptera in the hands of Loew. I re¬
produce the draft of a letter of mine to Prof. Louis Agassiz, dated
from Riva, Lago di Garda, October, 1872: —

Before leaving the United States I took occasion to mention to your son
how desirable it would be to secure for the Museum of Comparative Zoology
the collection of North American Diptera now in Dr. Loew’s possession,
which contains all the types of his descriptions. Allow me to explain to
you the origin and the present condition of this collection. The majority
of the specimens and species which it contains were collected by me, and
sent to Loew for the purpose of being described. I distinctly reserved my
right of ownership in these specimens, as can be proved by the correspond¬
ence exchanged between Loew and myself on this subject. My sole inten¬
tion, however, in thus insisting upon my right of ownership was to secure
the eventual return to the United States of these specimens, which in the
meantime would have become valuable types of descriptions. And all I
am expecting now, in consideration of the cession of my rights, is, that
Dr. Loew, my friend, and for many years my collaborator in American
dipterology, and to whose writings the collection owes its principal value,

1 Loew’s widow had returned to me all the letters I had written to her husband be¬
tween 1871 and 1879. Of my letters to Loew between 1856 and 1871, with rare excep¬
tions, I have neither drafts nor originals.

TRANSFER OF LOEW’S COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

79

shall be remunerated for the labor he has bestowed upon it.1 It must
be borne in mind at the same time that, besides what he received from me,
Loew has considerably added to this collection from other sources (for
instance, by purchases from Mr. Belfrage), so that a portion of it is his
property. Thus the sum paid to him will also cover the purchase of the
specimens of the latter description. The collection contains : —

1. The original types of all the North American
species described by Loew (the total number being

1350-1 3G0), say . 1300 species.

2. Species described by former authors and satis¬
factorily identified by Loew, at least . 330 species.

3. Undescribed and unidentified species (according

to Loew’s estimation) . 1200-1300 species.

Total . 2800-2900 species.

You are aware that the portion of my own dipterological collection which
remained in my hands in the United States is deposited now by me (with
your leave) in the Cambridge Museum. It is of course smaller than the
other as to the number of species. It contains : —

1. Numbered duplicates of a considerable number of species repre¬
sented in most cases by ■well-preserved specimens, in addition to the
typical ones of the other collection, that may in some cases have become
defective in consequence of travel and handling.

2. The types of my descriptions, especially in the family Tipulidae.

3. The entire collection of the family Tabanidae, which I intend to work
up at some future time.

N. B. This was written in 1872. Since then, besides the Tabanidae , many
other typieal specimens of my descriptions have been added to the collection : those
of my “Western Diptera,” of my paper on Syrphus s. str., etc.

4. A large number of undetermined species, not contained in the other
collection, especially in the families which have not been worked up (Ma-
scidae , Culicidae, Chironomidae, etc.).

Both collections united must contain about 1800 determined species
(about 1450 of which are original types) and certainly beyond 1600
undetermined species ; and thus they represent very nearly the actual con¬
dition of our knowledge of North American Diptera.

Now, as soon as the former collection becomes the property of the
Museum, I will formally renounce in favor of the same Museum my right

1 Loew had received from the Smithsonian Institution a pecuniary compensation
for the manuscripts of the three volumes of the “Monographs.” But, of course, this
compensation covered that part of his work only, and not his other publications
(“ Centuries,” etc.), nor the additions made by himself to the collection.

80

TRANSFER OF LOEW’s COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

of property in the latter collection, and thus the Museum, in acquiring one
collection, will have secured both.

Before concluding, I will add an observation. Loew continues to work
upon tbe materials in the collection JSTo. 1. He contemplates especially
to prepare a critical catalogue of the described Diptera of North America
(to supersede my Catalogue of 1858). It would be desirable, therefore, to
leave the collection in his bands for a few years longer. Nevertheless,
some arrangement should be entered into at once to remove all uncertainty
as to the future of the collection, and to secure the ultimate possession of
it to the Cambridge Museum. It will remain for you and Dr. Hagen to
decide as to the mode of proceeding for attaining this object.

On the same clay, in October, 1872, I wrote to Dr. Hagen (at that
time Custodian of the Entomological Department of the Museum in
Cambridge, Mass.), informing him of some particulars concerning
the proposed transaction which had been agreed upon between
Loew and myself during my visit to Loew about five weeks before
(August 28-25, 1872), but which I had not mentioned in my letter
to Professor Agassiz. Loew thought that the sum of from fifteen
hundred to sixteen hundred dollars would be a reasonable compensa¬
tion to him, and that an agreement could be entered into in virtue
of which he (Loew) would be bound to deliver the collection
within a certain number of years (say ten years).

Professor Agassiz answered my letter rather late, in May 31,
1873, having been prevented by circumstances from doing it earlier,
and thus it happened that his letter, directed originally to my
bankers in Florence, followed me about Europe from place to place
during my travels, and finally came back to Cambridge, Mass.,
where I found it upon my return to the United States in the
autumn of 1873. As the matter was not an urgent one, there was
no harm in the delay. I quote the principal passage of Prof. L.
Agassiz’s letter (translated from the original French) “ I am writ¬
ing to ask you to come to a final agreement for the acquisition of
Loew’s collection, about which we have already had a conversation,
and for which you have been kind enough to offer your good offices
and assistance. I shall accept with gratitude whatever you may
do in this business, and I write you to-day for the particular pur¬
pose of informing you that I hold at your, or Mr. Loew’s, disposal
the sum agreed upon by you as the price of the collection, which

TRANSFER OF LOEW’S COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

81

I shall forward to you by return of mail. I am most desirous of
acquiring the collection for us,’' etc.

In a letter from Cambridge, Mass., November 21, 1873, I in¬
formed Loew that Professor Agassiz had agreed to his conditions,
and that, upon his (Agassiz’s) expressing some anxiety about the
identity of the object of the purchase, I had given him the assur¬
ance that the collection was kept in a separate case or cupboard
(“ Sclirank ”), so that no mistake was possible. I added that upon
receiving the price of it, he (Loew) should immediately insure it
for the corresponding amount ; that, in return for the long delay
accorded, he should continue his work on the collection, and also
on the promised Catalogue. To this Loew replied (Guben, Decem¬
ber 16, 1873) : “In the matter of the purchase of the collection, I
accept Professor Agassiz's conditions. I shall compensate for the
immediate payment of the fifteen hundred dollars by continuing to
complete it so far as possible (‘ nach Moglichkeit zu vervollstan-
digen’), and to use all diligence in the publication of the unde¬
scribed species which it contains. You were perfectly right in
reassuring Professor Agassiz about the state of the collection,
which is kept separate from the others in a case containing fifty
glass-covered drawers, easily distinguishable from my other collec¬
tions. I agree to the assignment of ten years for the final
delivery of the collection, although I believe that the growing
infirmities of my age will make the interval shorter. All 1113^ col¬
lections are insured against fire ; but I shall make a separate
arrangement for the insurance of the North American collection.”
At the end of the letter Loew thanked me for the sacrifice I had
made of my own collection : “ The generous way in which 3*011
intend to give up your own collection I appreciate with sincere
gratitude (‘ Die generose Art in welcher Sie sicli Ihrer Dipteren
entaussern zu wollen erklart haben, erkenne ich mit aufrichtigem
Danke an’).” This letter of Loew was dated December 16, 1873 ;
in the meantime (December 14) had occurred the untimely death
of Prof. Louis Agassiz. Nevertheless the promised sum for the
collection was paid to Loew during the next 3*ear, 1874.

Besides my Diptera, I had presented to the Museum of Compara¬
tive Zoology in Cambridge, Mass., my collection of deforma-

6

82

TRANSFER OF LOEW’S COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

tions of plants, consisting of galls produced by Cynipidae ,
Cecidom yiae , and other insects, and also by Acaridae ; and of de¬
formations produced by microscopic fungi, and by hypertrophy.
1 suppose that it is in reference to these collections that Prof.
Louis Agassiz wrote me the following letter which I find among
my papers ; it was written under dictation, during illness, and was
dated Cambridge, April 19, 1872, just before my departure for
Europe : “ Dr. Hagen has just told me what a magnificent present
you have made to our Museum. I lament that I am too sick to
return my warmest thanks with my own hand, but be assured that
I shall ever cherish the remembrance of your liberality towards our
Institution. It will always be gratefully recorded with us that the
first part of our entomological collection, which has reached a high
scientific standard, was that which we owe to you. I had hoped
that my convalescence would be short, to enable me to see you
before your departure. I can only wish you a pleasant journey,
coupled with the request that you may hereafter remember me
and continue to me your friendship.”

In my simplicity, and in presence of Loew’s warm assurances
of the interest he took in the collection, I did not realize the grav¬
ity of the change which had, in the mean time, taken place in regard
to our joint labors. I did not know that at the time when Loew
signed the letter accepting the conditions of Agassiz, he had his
mandate as a member of the Chamber of Deputies in Berlin in his
pocket. In the spring of 1874 I received a letter from him, dated
Berlin, May 15, which began in this fashion: “ I have just received
your letter of April 29, which found me in Berlin, where I am de¬
tained as a member of the Chamber of Deputies, and am over¬
whelmed with work towards the end of the spring session. You
may perhaps blame me for having, by the acceptance of this man¬
date, put an obstacle in the way of my entomological activity. As
I had, for this very reason, declined a mandate to the Reichstag
that had been offered to me, it was impossible for me to refuse the
seat in the Chamber of Deputies without breaking with my politi¬
cal friends and the members of my party. My refusal would have
given the seat of the District to the opposite party, and thus I was
compelled to accept the burden with resignation. But enough of

TRANSFER OF LOEW’S COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

83

this (‘Doch genug davon’).” And then, for the evident purpose
of mitigating the effect of such a beginning, Loew passed without
any transition to a rambling discourse, on four closely written
pages, about his interest in the collection, his plans for the future
new Catalogue, etc. The letter ended thus : “ Once more my heart¬
felt thanks for the great proofs of friendly kindness and faithful
friendship by which, I cannot deny it, you have relieved me of a
heavy burden of material anxiety in which I have been involved
by the circumstances of the times (‘ durch welche Sie mir in Folge
der Zeitverhaltnisse, wie ich nicht leugnen kann, eine schwer
lastende materielle Sorge abgenommen haben ’). Thus I am enabled
now to devote more time and strength to the study of the American
Diptera, and I promise you to do this as far as the strength of my
old age (‘ alten Krafte ’) permits. With the assurances,” etc., etc.

The true meaning of this strange proceeding of Loew’s was, that
the various sums of money which he had received through my
mediation had enabled him to realize his long-cherished plan of re¬
entering political life. Henceforth his constant pre-occupation
consisted in lulling me with his assurances about his interest in
our common work, and his preparations for the new Catalogue,
while his inner self was occupied in an entirely different sphere.

It was not only for the transaction about the sale of the collection that Loew
felt grateful, but also for a payment he had recently received from the Smithsonian
Institution for the third volume of the “Monographs.” About this remunera¬
tion, I had made an arrangement rather advantageous for Loew’s finances. I
translate a passage of my letter to him, dated May 2, 1872 : “ I made with Pro¬
fessor Baird the following arrangement, and I hope you will not take it in bad
part. As I did not care to make the translation for nothing, I agreed with the
Smithsonian Institution that they should consider the English manuscript as your
work, and that they should add the payment for my translation to the remunera¬
tion due to you. This will make them understand that I consider the remunera¬
tion which you receive as too small, and will add a zest to my labor in translating.”

The consequences of this change in Loew’s situation soon became
manifest. My claims upon him had much increased since I had
settled in Cambridge, Mass. While I lived in Washington and in
New York, I had my specialties to occupy me, and my correspond¬
ence with Loew had principally our common work for its object.
In Cambridge, besides putting in order the Museum’s and my own

84

TRANSFER OF LOEW’S COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

collections, I had undertaken, independently of Loew, to prepare
materials for the new edition of the Catalogue of North American
Diptera, and besides this, I often received from various quarters,
and more frequently than before, collections of Diptera for deter¬
mination, which were sometimes of considerable size. Prof. J. II.
Comstock, for instance, sent me a very valuable collection for that
purpose. I find that between May, 1874, and May, 1875, I wrote
fifteen letters to Loew ; and I must render him the justice to say
that he was very conscientious in answering my numerous ques¬
tions about details of nomenclature. When he was in Berlin, he
had of course to postpone his answers until his return to Guben.
During the same interval I received ten letters from him, most of
them very long and rambling, and many of them written in the
Chamber of Deputies in Berlin.

In a letter of June 19, 1874, wishing to accelerate the working
up of some families of Diptera, I suggested to Loew the idea that
the North American Muscidae Calyptratae, of which there was plenty
of material, but which had not been worked up at all, should be
entrusted to some German entomologist of the younger generation,
for the purpose of being described under the supervision of Loew.
I was willing to remunerate that entomologist out of my own
pocket, and to undertake the translation of the manuscript into
English. I was thinking of Kowarz , who would have been per¬
fectly willing to undertake a work which, besides its scientific
interest, would have afforded him a welcome addition to his rather
meagre income. My proposal was so serious that on the very
next day (June 20, 1874) I wrote a second letter to Loew, to ex¬
plain and develop my proposition. My good will came to nothing,
in consequence of Loew’s indifference. He received the proposal
rather coolly, and said (letter of July 4, 1874) that Schiner alone
would have been able to undertake the work. Unfortunately
Schiner had died the year before, and the idea of Schiner working
under the guidance of his enemy, Loew, was preposterous. A
counter-proposition which Loew offered me was just like him. lie
said that if I was willing to spend money for the description of
North American Diptera, it would perhaps be expedient to publish
plates, with figures representing generic types, with appended do-

TRANSFER OF LOEW’S COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

85

scriptions, d la Curtis. This edition de luxe , of course, would have
been published in Germany, under the superintendence of Dr. Loew,
and would have contributed, without much trouble on his part, to
his own glory. I paid no attention to this selfish proposition. In a
letter (from Halle, October 27, 1874), Loew returned to this subject,
and mentioned Ivowarz as a fitting person for the work I had pro¬
posed ; but it was evident that Loew was not serious, and I aban¬
doned the matter. The earlier letter (July 4, 1874) was typical of
the rest ; six closely written pages, the last of which contained not
less than fifty-three lines, a letter written at intervals, in a rambling
way, passing from one subject to the other, without treating any¬
thing seriously. It was evident that Loew was struggling pain¬
fully between two conflicting duties. He now began to think of
the possible expediency of sending to America at least portions of the
collection (Loew’s letters of October 27 and December, 1874). In
answer to these proposals, I advised him (January 22, 1875) to write
to Mr. Alexander Agassiz (successor of Prof. Louis Agassiz in the
management of the Museum), and to inform him that his (Loew’s)
health prevented him from working any longer upon the collection,
and that he would prefer to send it over, either in portions, or the
whole at once. I added, for Loew’s guidance, that the collection
would be kept intact, and not incorporated with the other collec¬
tion. Whereupon Loew answered (February 15, 1875) : “ As you in¬
form me that the collection will be kept separately, I have no doubts
now how to arrange a gradual transfer of it. I shall begin with
those portions which contain most of the types described by me.
Whatever I have in hand of unpublished species of these same
families, I shall, at the same time, publish.” This letter was written
from Berlin, and Loew complained that, on account of the length
of the session, he would have to remain there till June. The next
letter, likewise from Berlin, was written leisurely at the Chamber
of Deputies, on March 20, 21, 22, 1875. It was again a long, ram¬
bling, nevertheless most friendly letter, containing an account of
the state of entomology in Europe in general, reflections on the
system of classification to adopt in the future Catalogue, etc. The
conclusion was: “ I hope to write again soon and more at leisure.
Bis dahin herzlichen Gruss , allezeit aber in hochachtungsvoller

8G

TRANSFER OF LOEW’S COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

Freund schaft Ihr herzlicli ergebener , IT. Z.” This was the last
letter I received from Loew at that time. Several letters of mine
remained without answer, and before starting for California I wrote,
plaintively, but in vain (November 80, 1875): “ Please remember
that since March last I have not received a sign of life from you,”
etc. With this our correspondence ended, and was only renewed
when I landed in Europe two years later.

It was evident that Loew had become sick of the insincere game
he was playing with me, and had suddenly thrown off the mask,
and put an abrupt end to this useless correspondence. In the
mean time, I had accomplished my western journey (December,
1875-September, 1876), had written and published my “Western
Diptera,” and was preparing to leave for Europe. A correspond¬
ence took place between Mr. Alexander Agassiz and me about
the North American collection in the hands of Loew. I gave
Mr. Agassiz (February 25, 1877) a detailed account of the strange
position in which Loew had placed me, and of my anxiety about the
collection. I asked him to write to Loew and to request him to
prepare the collection for shipment next autumn. I remember
Hagen chaffing me about it, and warning me that the collection
would never reach Cambridge, Mass. Mr. A. Agassiz followed
my advice, wrote to Loew, and received an answer which he sent
me at Newport, Rhode Island, my residence at that time.

Of this answer of Loew to Mr. Agassiz (dated Guben, April 6,
1877), I shall give here the beginning in abstract, and the rest
verbatim. It begins with apologies for dictating the letter, as
he had had a stroke of paralysis during the summer of 1876, and
had not yet quite recovered from it. The shipment of the collec¬
tion, for this reason, would not be possible before the autumn of
1877. Put for accomplishing this purpose within the specified
time, it was absolutely necessary for Osten Sacken to come to
Guben, and to discuss different matters on which would depend
the usefulness of the collection when it should reach the Museum
in Cambridge, Mass. The work on the Catalogue being a part of
the contract concluded with Prof. Louis Agassiz in 1873, Loew
felt the necessity of explaining his tardiness. For three years he
had been occupied in the Chamber of Deputies in Berlin, in the

TRANSFER OF LOEW’S COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

87

“ Kreistag,” and in the “ Kirchenrath,” and these occupations ended
with his above-mentioned illness. Under such circumstances, the
work prepared for the Catalogue had not yet reached the amplitude
that Loew had hoped to give it (“ Leider sind die von mir gefertigten
Arbeiten nicht ganz zu dem Umfange gelangt, den ich zu erreichen
hoffte ”).

The letter goes on as follows : —

“ This burden of occupation on my side, and the frequent changes of resi¬
dence of Baron Osten Sacken, were the cause that a great part of the work on
Xorth American Diptera prepared by me has not yet come into the hands
of Osten Sacken, and has not yet been published. It would be very re¬
grettable if this should not be retrieved. As soon as I am in condition to
go to work again, I shall resume my regular correspondence with Osten
Sacken, and shall endeavor to continue it steadily, because such is the only
way to convey the collection into your hands in the most expedient and
satisfactory manner.

“Furthermore, it is only through a conference with Osten Sacken that it
will be possible for me to decide which portions of the collection should be
sent to Cambridge first, in order to be serviceable to him for the prepara¬
tion of his intended new edition of the Catalogue of Diptera. In case you
should prefer to receive the whole collection sooner, without making use
of the preliminary work prepared by me for the compilation of the new
Catalogue, it will perhaps be possible for me to accomplish this, within a
reasonable time, with the help of an entomological friend. However, the
aim in view would be attained in a better and more satisfactory manner
with the personal aid of Osten Sacken.”

Whatever the work “ prepared for the Catalogue ” may have
been, I have never seen a particle of it, except a few scraps which
will be noticed below, in my “ Report " to Mr. Alexander Agassiz.
In the mean time, the Catalogue I had prepared independently of
Loew was finished in manuscript, and only required collating with
the collection in Guben.

The original German of the last paragraph of Loew’s letter runs as follows : —

“ Durch diese Arbeitslast auf meiner Seite, und rlurch die hiiufigen Ortsveran-
derungen des II. Baron Osten Sacken andrerseits, ist der grosste Tlieil der von mir in
dieser Zeit gefertigten Arbeiten iiber die N. A. Dipterenfauna noch gar nicht in die
Hiinde von Baron Osten Sacken, und nocli viel weniger zur Publication gelangt. Es
wiirde selir bedauerlich seiti, wenn dies nicht nocli nachgeholt werden sollte. Sobald
ich wieder etwas arbeitsfahiger sein werde, will ich mich von Neuern mit Osten Sacken
in feste Verbindung setzen, und dauernd darin zu erhalten suchen, da nur mit Iliilt'e

88

TRANSFER OF LOEW’S COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

einer solehen die Sammlung in erspriesslichster unci zweckmassigster Weise in Ihre
Hande geleitet vverden kann.

“Audi vermag ich nur dureli Besprechung niit ilim festzustellen, welclie Tlieile der
Sammlung zunachst nacli Cambridge gesendet werden miissen, urns einer neuen werth-
vollen Bearbeitung des Dipteren-Catalogs zu Statten zu kommen. Wenn Sie die
ganze Sammlung baldigst haben wollen, ohne dass die von mir gemachten Yor-
arbeiten fiir die Zusamnienstellung des neuen Catalogs ausgenutzt werden sollen, so
werde ich das vielleicht mit Hiilfe eines befreundeten Dipterologen in leidlicher Frist
zu Stande bringen vermbgen. Besser und griindlicher wird allerdings der Zweek dureli
Osten Saeken’s persoiiliche Beihiilfe gefordert werden.”

About these proposals of Loew I reproduce my answer to Mr.
Agassiz (Newport, R. I., April 24, 1877), as I find it in the draft
which I possess. It gives a curious insight into my state of mind
at that time.

“ Dear Mr. Agassiz : — I return herewith Loew’s letter. In my opinion,
the safest course to pursue, would be to take advantage of the passage on
the third page (‘ In case you should prefer to receive the whole collection,’
etc.) and to answer that the Museum wishes to come into possession of the
collection as soon as possible, and without depending on Osten Sacken’s
arrival, or co-operation. It would be useful to remind Loew to return at
the same time those specimens which I foolishly sent him, while at work in
the Museum. I doubt very much of the utility of further publications on
his part in the present state of things (assuming that such publications
were possible and seriously contemplated). They would necessarily appear
in Germany, and in the German language, and thus throw an obstacle in
the way of the American student instead of helping him. Loew cannot
count upon me for translating and editing them, as I have done for the
three volumes of the ‘Monographs of North American Diptera’; I have
had enough of that kind of labor. Loew’s letter does not afford any clue
towards explaining his behavior towards me. He seems to forget that his
silence began more than a year before his illness. And if he thinks
that, after such a behavior, I will continue to play second fiddle to him,
he takes altogether too favorable a view of my good-nature. His want of
candor appears especially in the passage, ‘ the frequent changes of residence
of Osten Sacken, ’ etc., as if my movements had anything to do with his
writings, and as if he had not written his last letter to me more than eight
months before I left for California !

“ I have done with my winter’s work (Western Diptera) and intend to
take a short holiday in New York. I do not think I shall sail for Europe
before June.”

My decision to have the collection shipped without any further
delay proved most fortunate, because the decay of Loew’s faculties

TRANSFER OF LOEW’S COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

89

progressed very rapidly during the following summer (1877), and
he was hardly able to transact any serious matter with me when I
visited him in autumn.

I sailed for Europe in June, 1877, and spent a fortnight in Guben
in September. And now comes the strangest incident of this whole
transaction. Among Loew’s letters which I have before me there
is one, upon which an annotation in my own handwriting explains
that this letter had been written by Loew in Berlin in March and
April, 1875, but, instead of being sent to me at that time, was kept
in Guben, until it was handed to me by Loew himself two years and
a half later , in September, 1877, when I paid him my last visit!

This letter had been begun a few days after Loew’s last letter to
me, of March 20-22, 1875, which I have characterized above as
long and rambling. A fortnight elapsed before Loew added a par¬
agraph to this new letter (on April 14), and then it remained in
his hands, unfinished. What explanation Loew gave me on that
occasion, I do not remember; at any rate an explanation for me
was unnecessary, because, as I said above (p. 8G), “ it was evi¬
dent that Loew had become sick of the insincere game he was
playing with me.”

The old letter, handed to me in such a strange manner, begins
thus ( translation ) : —

“My Dear Sir and Friend: — Your letter of March 5 [1875] arrived
two days after the posting of my last altogether meaningless letter. I ad¬
mire your vigorous entomological activity, and envy you the leisure you are
enjoying, and of which I am entirely deprived ; you may imagine how
anxious I am to he at home. That you have succeeded in unravelling, I may
say off-hand (‘so beian’), the genus Syrphus s. str., I admire!1 I stuck in
a jungle of uncertainty in attempting to determine the species of that group.
It would be splendid, if you succeeded likewise with Sphaerophoria, the
most difficult among the genera of Syrphidaef etc.

I reproduce the German text of this part of the letter : “ Mein hoch geehrtester
Herr und Freund, Ihr Brief vora 5. Marz [1875] traf zwei Tage nach Abgangmeines
vorigen, recht inhaltslosen Briefes liier an. Ich bewundere Ihr riistiges entomolo-
gisches Sehaffen und beneide Sie darum, da ich bier gar keine Musse zu gewinnen

1 This is an allusion to my paper: “On the North American species of the genus
Syrphus (in the narrowest sense)”; Proc. Boston Society Natural History 1875 my
No. 47, 1875).

90

TRANSFER OF LOEW’S COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

vermag ; Sie konnen denken, dass ich mick herzlich nach Hanse sekne. Dass Sie
die Gattung Syrphus s. str. so keian kaben abmachen konnen, bewundere ick ; ich
bin bei dem Yersuch die Arten derselben zu bestimmen gar sehr im Gestriipp der
Zweifel stecken geblieben. Prachtig ware es, wenn es Ilmen nock gelange in der
sckwierigsten aller Syrpkidengattungen, namlich in der Gatt. Sphaerophoria,
einiges Lickt zu verschaffen ; ich vermag bis jetzt die festen Grenzen zwischen'den
americanischen Arten ebenso wenig zu finden, wie zwiscken unseren europaischen,
und jene von diesen zum guten Tkeil nicht zu untersckeiden,” etc.

The rest of the letter treats of entomological matters. The col¬
lector Jacob Boll had been in Berlin recently with a splendid
collection of Diptera from Texas. Loew complained of Dr.
Gerstaecker, the Custodian of the entomological collection of
the Berlin Museum, who had played false with him in purchasing
the best part of Boll’s specimens at a very cheap rate, and let him
depart without letting Loew know anything about it. At this point
the letter comes to an abrupt termination.

Jacob Boll, born in Switzerland in 1828, died in Texas in September, 1880.
The lepidopterist H. Frey of Zurich said of him that “ he was born a collector,
with a wonderfully quick eye.” H. Iv. Morrison, in the United States, was
another instance of a marvellous talent in the same profession.

About the result of my visit at Guben, and the receiving and
packing up of the collection of North American Diptera, I drew up
a report to Mr. Alexander Agassiz, dated from Berlin, September,
1877. I reproduce the rough draft of this report, as I find it
among my papers : —

“ I have just returned from Guben, where I have received and packed the
collection of North American Diptera. According to your instructions, the
three large cases containing it have been sent to the office of Richard and
Boas in Hamburg. ... I fondly hope that the collection may arrive safely,
although I am not without anxiety about it. The drawers which contain
it are bad for transportation, heavy, and with glass covers. Strips of
paper have been pasted, crosswise, on these covers, so as to support the
glass in case of breakage. This was done by order of Loew before I came.
Some textile fabric would have done better I think. The drawers (42 in
all) are packed in very strong wooden cases with mattresses inside. The
packers, who seem to be experts, assure me that all is safe. Still I shall
feel very anxious until I hear of the safe arrival of this precious collection.
If I had other drawers at my disposal (or Deyrolle’s ‘cartons ’ as the best)
I would not have grudged the trouble of transferring the whole collection.

TRANSFER OF LOEW’S COLLECTION TO CAMBRIDGE

91

In the meantime I have done what I could to secure its safety. Before
packing, I collated the whole collection with my manuscript Catalogue, and
put in order those portions which were in confusion. Furthermore I tested
the strength of the insertion of nearly every pin, and secured those which
seemed loose. I write out separately a detailed technical report of what I
have done, and of the condition in which 1 found the collection.” [This
Beport is contained in my Chapter XIII.]

“ Loew seems to be well enough, he can walk and talk and give useful
information on whatever he is asked. At the same time, c’est un homme
Jini. He cannot stand the slightest intellectual effort, any concentration of
mind, or of memory. Writing the simplest letter is a great effort for him.
His physician told me that his case was an ossification of the blood-vessels of
the brain, which was incurable. But in ordinary intercourse one could stay
some time with him without noticing anything. — I spent not less than
jifteen, not very pleasant days of hard work in Guben, which of course will
also benefit my Catalogue of Diptera. I obtained many data for it
from the collection, and from some manuscript notes of Loew, but I had
to spare Loew himself as much as possible. Next winter I intend to
spend in Heidelberg.”

“P. S. The height of the drawers will allow them to be placed inside of
the Museum-drawers ; so that Hagen will have no trouble about it.”

This last detail is important, because after the safe arrival of the
collection in Cambridge, Mass., the drawers containing it were pre¬
served in the Museum in the same state in which they had left
Loew’s house. The expenses incurred by me for the packing of
the collection, the freights, etc., were immediately refunded to me
by Mr. A. Agassiz.

In presence of the tragedy of Loew’s decline and death (an ac¬
count of which will be found in Chapter XV, “ Obituary Notice”),
we must not consider the detail, but the total result of his contri¬
bution to American dipterology, which consists of a very large
amount of descriptive work, always thoroughly conscientious, and
of the realization of the long-cherished ideal of a typical collection,
which was delivered by Loew in a perfect condition. This was the
same Loew who, according to his biographer, had made in his youth
(and kept) the vow not to partake of any warm food, until lie had
paid off the debts contracted during the penurious years of his
LTniversity studies 1 At the same time I must confess that if
Loew had met my good will with more straightforwardness and

92

SPECIAL REPORT ON THE COLLECTION

candor, if lie had been, in this respect, more like Dr. Hagen, we
should have reached the same result, or perhaps more, but, at least
for me, with less friction.

My principal motive for drawing up this long account of my
relations with Loew, and of my scheme to form, for future use, a
collection of the original types of North American Diptera, was the
intrinsic interest which attaches to the matter. I confidently hope
that, besides the biographical and psychological features connected
with my story, the details it contains will be of some use to those
who may have occasion to consult the collection in future. The
desire to do justice to myself, legitimate as it is, would not have
alone prompted me to undertake this somewhat tedious task.

XIII SPECIAL REPORT ON THE COLLECTION OF NORTH AMER¬
ICAN DIPTERA, ACCUMULATED IN GUBEN, AND TRANS¬
FERRED IN 1877 TO THE MUSEUM IN CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

1 Ho w I received the Collection 1

Before having the collection removed from Loew’s dwelling and
boxed up, I collated all species contained in it with my manuscript
Catalogue, which I had brought with me. The specimens which
had been temporarily removed to other boxes and drawers were put
back wLere they belonged. I found that, on the whole, the collec¬
tion was remarkably complete and in good order. Some few of
Loew’s descriptions had been made from specimens borrowed from
other collections, and those, of course, were not present. Very few
types were wanting for other reasons ; for instance, from the acci¬
dental loss of a label, or on account of the destruction of the origi¬
nal specimen. The type-specimens were provided with labels in
Loew’s own handwriting fastened on the pin ; the others were
placed alongside of them, or behind them, in a second row. Spe¬
cific names alone are marked on the labels ; the generic names are

1 This is the separate technical Report about the collection mentioned in my letter
to Mr. Alexander Agassiz in Chapter XII. 1 have modified it in some parts, espe¬
cially at the end, to suit present circumstance and to make it more intelligible. If I
publish all the minutiae about labels, localities, original discoverers of the species, etc.,
it is because I am convinced that they are not useless.

SPECIAL REPORT OX THE COLLECTION

93

almost entirely omitted in the collection. This will offer no incon¬
venience whatever, considering that only advanced students, and
not beginners, will be admitted to the use of the collection. In
some few cases the types bore on the label a name different from
that which had been used in the description ; the real name is, how¬
ever, always easy to trace. In some instances of this kind, but not in
all, I added a label with the true name, without removing the label in
the handwriting of Loew. (All labels of my own which I intro¬
duced in the collection are signed with my name.) In cases when
the locality named in the description did not appear among the
specimens on hand, I had reason to suppose that the description
had been drawn from specimens sent in my earlier consignments,
and that they had been replaced later by better preserved specimens
from other localities.

With very few exceptions, everything was left as it was found.
At the request of Loew, I put in better order the Easypogonina
and the genus Tipula , which, in consequence of the numerous
additions made, were somewhat in confusion and too crowded. I
put some order in the genus Syrphus, and also transferred the con¬
tents of one of the drawers, which I did not think safe, into another,
taking care to preserve as much as possible the arrangement which
I found. Loew told me that the Empidae had been put in older, at
his request, by Mr. Kowarz. Wishing to reduce as much as pos¬
sible the number of drawers to be boxed up, I left behind the
Tabanidae , as the collection of them contained no types and was
insignificant in comparison with my typical collection, presented by
me to the Museum in Cambridge, Mass. For the same reason, I
did not take the Limnobina , as all the types will be found in my
collection in the Museum. But in both cases I singled out a few
species which I thought worth preserving. Besides the portion of
the collection which had been worked up by Loew, there are whole
families which are still in a crude condition. Nevertheless they
show a beginning of an arrangement by Loew, and contain many
labels and notices in his handwriting which may be useful. I
should recommend to leave such portions of the collection un¬
touched, as, in that state, they may be serviceable to those who will
in future work up any of such families.

94

SPECIAL REPORT ON THE COLLECTION

2 Miscellaneous Notes on the Localities of the Diptera in Loew's and
my Collections (riow both in the Museums in Cambridge , Mass.')
and on the Collectors who , besides myself, have contributed to
them

Many specimens, in both collections, will be found without any
indication of locality. Most of them are specimens of my own
early collecting, principally about Washington, D. C. In sending
them to Loew I always informed him of the localities, which for
this reason ought to be found recorded in his descriptions.

Diptera coming from various sources bear different little labels,
some of which I shall attempt to explain.

1. Labels with numbers, corresponding to the same numbers in
the Qsten Sacken Collection (in the same Museum), represent
specimens which I sent to Loew, while keeping duplicate speci¬
mens in my own collection. (Compare my Reports to the Trustees
of the Museum 44, 1875, p. 15.)

2. Round, blue labels mean specimens from Mr. Calverly (at
that time in Brooklyn, N. Y.), collected in New York State.

3. Silver squares mean Cuba (Loew’s Coll.).

4. Ochre — yellow squares — Texas (id.).

5. Green squares with R upon them mean, “ Red River of the
North ” (collected by Mr. Robert Kennicott) ; similar green squares
with Fa upon them, indicate my collecting in Florida ; and those
with Cu , my collecting in Cuba.

6. Small pink squares mean Sitka (Loew’s Coll.) ; somewhat
similar, but larger squares of a reddish color I have for some time
used for District of Columbia , but they do not occur often.

7. Some paper squares with dates will be easily recognized as
indicating flies from Pecos River , collected by United States officers
under the command of Captain (later General) Pope. In Loew’s
“ Centuries ” such specimens are marked : New Mexico (Captain
Pope).

8. White labels, with numbers, mean : collected by Mr. S. II.
Scudder in Massachusetts. Nearly similar labels indicate insects
received from Connecticut (E. Norton).

9. Small yellow round labels mean Florida , collected by Mr. E.
Norton.

SPECIAL REPORT ON THE COLLECTION

95

10. Small triangular labels, yellow and green, mark a consider¬
able number of specimens from Western New York , which I received
for determination from Prof. J. H. Comstock with the permission
to retain duplicates.

Some further notices may be useful : —

Diptera from Nebraska , some of which are described in the
“Centuries” (for instance, I, 37,57, 79, 80; II, 9, 15; IV, 52, 73,
91; V, 42; VI, 15, 18; VII, 27, 47, 48; VIII, 43, 94; IX, 21),
were collected by Dr. F. V. Ilayden, during the earlier period of
his career. I mention this, because the name of the collector has
in most cases been omitted by Loew.

Diptera marked N. II. (New Hampshire) on white, square,
printed labels, were all collected by me in the White Mountains,
New Hampshire, whether my name is mentioned or not (this con¬
cerns especially Century IX).

Between the years of 1858 and 1861, I received several lots of
Diptera, collected by Mr. W. II. Edwards (of Coalburgh, Virginia)
principally in the State of New York ; but I do not remember
whether they were separately labeled or not. Edwards’s name often
occurs in the “ Centuries,” especially in the first.

Several specimens from California I received from Mr. Alexander
Agassiz. They are described in the “ Centuries,” as received from
him, but whether they bear particular marks in the Collection, I do
not remember.

Many new species of Diptera contributed by Dr. William Le
Baron, in Geneva, Ill., will be found described, principally in
Loew’s “Centuries” ( e.g . Century II, VI, etc.).

Diptera from Oregon (Centuries VI, 69) and Matamoras (Cen¬
turies VI, 65) are wrongly attributed to me in the “Centuries.”
I have never visited these regions.

Before the arrival, in 1877, of the collection from Guben, I had
made a present of my own collection of North American Diptera
to the Museum of Comparative Zoology in Cambridge, Mass,
(compare Chapter XII). With this collection I amalgamated the
materials in Diptera which had been accumulated in the Museum
before my arrival, principally by its Custodian, Mr. Philip IE
Uhler, predecessor of Dr. Hagen. Of the result of this operation

96

RELATIONS WITH LOEW AFTER MY RETURN TO EUROPE

I presented a detailed Report to the Trustees of the Museum, which
is incorporated (p. 14-17) in their Annual Report of 1874 to the
State Legislature. This Report of mine (44, 1875) contains abun¬
dant notices on the localities, as well as on the captors and contrib¬
utors of Diptera to the Museum before 1873-1875, and is a useful
contribution to the history of this collection before its amalgama¬
tion with the Loew and Osten Sacken collections.

XIV MY RELATIONS WITH LOEW SINCE MY RETURN TO
EUROPE IN 1877, UNTIL HIS DEATH IN 1879

My Chapter XII contains a detailed account of the transfer of the
collection of North American Diptera from Guben to Cambridge,
Mass., and it remains for me now to conclude the story of my
relations with Loew up to his death.

Loew’s very singular conduct towards me between 1875 and
1877, and the total cessation of our correspondence, did not pre¬
vent him from hailing my return to Europe with delight. The
first letter I received from him in Europe (dated August 10-14,
1877) began with the words: “My most heart-felt Salve upon your
arrival on German soil, which I connect with the hope of having a
long interview with you, and of the revival of our relations.” The
tone of his letters had now a touching ring of sincerity, quite dif¬
ferent from what I had been accustomed to before. But they were
painful to read on account of the evident decline of his faculties.
They were written with visible effort, and with frequent interrup¬
tions. In the above-quoted letter of August, 1877, he showed a
great anxiety about the fate of his own European collection and of
his numerous manuscripts, and asked me to help him in the matter.
To purchase the collection myself was out of the question ; I could
not assume the responsibilities which the possession of such a
collection would have involved. Fortunately, the question re¬
ceived the best possible solution in the purchase of it by the Prus¬
sian Government for the Berlin Museum.1 About his manuscripts

1 Compare Chapter XVI, at the end, where details about the fate of Loew’s
European collection will be found.

RELATIONS WITH LOEW AFTER MY RETURN TO EUROPE 97

Loew wrote : “ I have Collectanea and several unfinished works, a
part of them nearly ready, but which my present condition prevents
me from finishing. For instance, my work on the Amber Diptera”
(about this compare my Chapter IX) ; “ a work on Insects noxious
to Agriculture, prepared (as a prize-essay) in collaboration with
Schaum; the beginning of a work on Fedtchenko’s collection of
Diptera from Turkestan; preparations for a reform (‘ Neubearbei-
tung ’) of the System of Diptera for the intended new edition of
your Catalogue of North American Diptera” (about this, compare
my Chapter XII) ; “ a fourth volume of the Supplements to
Meigen, which lies before me nearly completed (‘ welcher fast
vollendet daliegt ’), and many other papers (‘ und vieles Aehn-
liches ’).” 1

Alexis Fedtchenko (1844-1873). I cannot let pass the name of this admirable man
and naturalist, who honored me with his friendship, without paying him a tribute
of respect and affection. His biography, with a portrait, will he found in the
Collection of Biographies of Russian Naturalists, published (in Russian) by the
Imperial Moscow Society of Natural Sciences, Yol. I (1888). A sympathetic notice
on his untimely and lamentable death on the “ Col du Geant” (near Mont Blanc)
on September 15, 1873, was published by G. Lohde, of Leipzig, in the Berl. Ent.
Zeit., 1873, p. 236. An important addition to it will be found in the same peri¬
odical, 1874, p. 150. Besides Fedtchenko’s many-sided work in all branches of
natural science during his explorations of Central Asia, he had a decided taste for
dipterology. His “Catalogue of the Diptera of the Environs of Moscow ” (in 4to,
1868) is a model of a work of that kind. The Diptera collected by him in Central
Asia were published by Loew principally in his volumes of “ Beschreibungen euro-
paischer Dipteren ” (1871-1873). Loew expresses his thanks to Fedtchenko in the
Preface (p. vi) of the third volume.

During my visit to Guben in September, 1877 (of which I have
given an account in my Chapter XII), I saw very little of Loew.
His nervous irritation was such that soon after my arrival his physi¬
cian ordered him to be completely isolated, and I accomplished my
object of packing up and sending off the collection without be¬
ing allowed to see him again. On November 17 I was able to
inform Loew, by letter, of the safe arrival of the collection in the
United States. He expressed his great satisfaction in a letter
begun in December, 1877, continued on January 5, 1878, and

1 That this fourth volume remained unpublished, was due to the fact that no
bookseller could be found to undertake such an unremunerative publication! (Com¬
pare the statement of Dr. J. Schabl (of Warsaw) in the Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1902, p. 71.)

7

98 RELATIONS WITH LOEW AFTER MY RETURN TO EUROPE

finished on January 11. Since September, he had spent some
time in the country, and felt strengthened. I reproduce (in trans¬
lation) the end of the letter : —

“ To what I have said, I shall add nothing, for fear of making it still
more confused. That I am going down-hill rapidly, you will easily per¬
ceive. The sad consequence of it is, that all my scientific correspondence
begins to lag, and that all communion with friends becomes more rare; in a
word, a solitude, intellectual and emotional, is forming around me; I ex¬
perience a painful longing for a change, and, if possible, for an improvement.
It is in the midst of such a state of depression that I beg you soon to cheer
me with an answer, and with friendly advice about the disposal of my col¬
lection. In old and sincere devotion, ever yours, H. Loew.”

Two or three more letters were exchanged between me (from
Heidelberg) and Loew (from Guben). He discussed some ento¬
mological matters, especially in a letter of his, dated February 12,
1878, which is rather long and nevertheless quite coherent. Loew
complained of the chaotic state of contemporaneous dipterology, and
attributed it to two causes : (1) The confusion of the System, and
(2) the isolation of dipterologists, who have gradually formed “ab-
geschlossene Landman nschaf ten ” (isolated corporations), each one
following a separate nomenclature, etc. ; a “ Babel-like confusion
of languages is the rule, and the collapse of the great tower of
Babel seems to be impending.” Loew throws out a hint I should
undertake the part of a mediator. The next and last letter shows
a lamentable deterioration. It is dated April 21, 1878, a year, day
for day, before Loew’s end. It is written under dictation, and
signed by the tremulous hand of Loew. The portion of it which
concerns the Amber Diptera work, I have reproduced in my Chap¬
ter IX ; the rest of the letter treats principally of the chances of
selling his European collection. Of his literary remains of which
he had made mention in his letter of August 10-14, 1877 (compare
above, p. 97), he never spoke to me again, either during our last
interview in Guben (September, 1877), or in any of his subsequent
letters. If lie had entertained for a moment the idea of instituting
me his literary executor, he must have abandoned it afterwards.
For this reason, after his demise, I felt that I had neither the right
nor the duty to inquire about his manuscripts.

OBITUARY NOTICE OF PROFESSOR LOEW

99

XV PROF. FR. HERMANN LOEW
An Obituary Notice by C. St. [Carus Sterne] 1

A brief notice among the parliamentary news of the “ Vossische
Zeitung ” announces the placid death, after a long illness, of the
distinguished pedagogue, naturalist, and pioneer of German unity,
Hermann Loew , in Ilalle on the Saale, on April 21 [1879]. A short
notice about the life and life-work of the deceased will not be un¬
welcome to his numerous pupils, political partisans, and friends.
He belonged to a family which, for centuries past, had followed the
career of civil functionaries or of divines. He was born on the 19th
of July, 1807, in Weissenfels [a short distance south of Halle.
Osten Sacken], as eldest son of a functionary in the Department
of Justice in the Duchy of Saxony, who afterwards became “ Ge-
heimer Regierungsrath ” in Prussia. From the conventual school
of Rossleben he passed to the University of Halle, where he devoted
himself assiduously to various studies in mathematics, philology,
and natural history, and thus laid the foundation for his many-
sided capacity for the profession of teaching. In the beginning of
the third decade of this century, he went to Berlin, and gave les¬
sons in different schools of higher grade, for some time also in the
military school (Kadetten-Scliule). Occasionally, he held the posi¬
tion of a private tutor of young men, for instance, of Prince Biron,
of the celebrated oculist Graefe, etc. It characterizes his strength
of will that, at the beginning of his career, he vowed never to touch
a warm morsel until he had paid off the debts contracted during the
penurious years of his studies, and that he actually carried out this
vow.

Pie was soon afterwards appointed superior teacher of the Fred¬
erick William Gymnasium in Posen, and married there (1834) the
daughter of “ Ober-Prediger ” Ehricht, a favorite preacher at that
time. He had made her acquaintance as a student, and for forty-
live years she was for him a faithful wife and nurse. He had in

i Translated from the Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 1879, p. 419-421. Cants
Sterne is the pseudonym and anagram of the well-known German author, Dr. Ernst
Krause.

100

OBITUARY NOTICE OF PROFESSOR LOEW

Posen a large field of activity as a teacher of mathematics and
natural history 1 ; at the same time he directed his attention to the
study of entomology, and especially to the, at that time, much
neglected order of two- winged insects. To this specialty he re¬
mained true during his life-time, and became later on one of the
first authorities on the subject. He first attracted attention by his
“ Horae anatomicae,” a work of the most minute research
in the anatomy of insects, and especially of their genital organs.
His next publications appeared in the so-called “ Programmes ”
of the Friedrich Wilhelm Gymnasium.

His long-cherished wish to make a journey of exploration to the
East was finally fulfilled. He undertook it (1841-1842) in com¬
pany with the celebrated geographer, Iviepert, and the philologist
and geographer, August Schoenborn, who afterwards became his
brother-in-law, but at that time was Professor in the same Institu¬
tion, and known as author of several Latin school-books. Loew was
unfortunately not in a position to publish the results of his journey
independently. He communicated a portion of them to the ento¬
mologist Burmeister, and also to Alex. v. Humboldt. The great¬
est part he made use of in his later publications. All his life he
longed for travel in distant countries, but in this respect cir¬
cumstances did not favor him.

In the midst of his labors the closing years of the first half of
the century brought on a period of political troubles, and found
him, in the advanced post which he occupied,2 an energetic
champion of German nationality. German to the core, he boldly
withstood the separatist longings of the Poles. The confidence of
his fellow-citizens in him was shown by his election to the first
German Parliament in Frankfort a. M. in 1848, when lie was only
forty years old. Always abstaining, according to his habit, from
noisy manifestations, but all the more zealously using a latent in¬
fluence, he devoted himself here untiringly to the support of
Gagern’s Imperial Party. The appalling news of a case of cholera

1 Several of his scholars became in due time scientific celebrities; for instance:
Prof. Kuno Fischer, and the mathematician Professor Konujsherger, both of whom I
have known in Heidelberg. — Ostkn Sacken.

2 Posen, near the frontier of Poland.

OBITUARY NOTICE OF PROFESSOR LOEW

101

in his family called him home (in the summer of 1849) from the
midst of his political activity. On the very day of his forty-third
anniversary, this plague carried off his eldest daughter, who had
just come of age, — a grief which he never entirely got over. He
soon became aware that the dream of his youth, the unity of Ger¬
many, was not to be realized at that time, and returned in resigna¬
tion to his pedagogic career, and to the study of natural history.

In the meantime his extraordinary abilities had been appreciated,
and in October, 1850, he was appointed Director of the Royal “ Real-
schule ” in Meseritz, which afterwards became a Gymnasium. He
found this Institution in an inchoate state of development, and soon
raised it, in spite of the small means at his disposal, to the rank of
one of the best schools of that time. The teaching of his favorite
subjects, especially mathematics and natural history, was raised
to a high degree of perfection. In his method of teaching he
showed real genius ; far from following the usual routine, he was
always suggestive and inspiring, instilling into the dullest heads a
glimpse of the superiority of their master. By such means he
acquired in a rare degree the affection of his scholars.

Unfortunately, the reactionary tendencies which prevailed at that
time prevented his merit from being appreciated as much as it de¬
served. And yet, absorbed by the duties of his official position and
by his scientific studies, he carefully abstained from politics. In
order to avoid all occasions of conflicts with his superiors in the
Educational Department, he resisted repeatedly offers of a seat in
the Prussian Landtag for the district of Meseritz-Bomst. In addi¬
tion to the difficulties of his political position, Loew had for several
years to endure severe bodily sufferings. When, after one of the
most painful periods of his life, — I mean in the years 1851-1854, 1
in which he suffered the torments of stone in the bladder, — he re¬
turned to his duties with an expression of deep suffering on his
face, but at the same time with the old energy and tenacity, hardly
one of us dared to hope that he would still be able to devote twenty-
five years of his life to the service of science and of his country.
Although he continued to follow his calling with all the fibres of

1 It will be noticed, in Hagen’s “ Bibliotheca,” Vol. I, p. 491, that, during the years,
1852-1854 (Nos. 68, 69) Loew published hardly anything. — Osten Sacicex.

102

OBITUARY NOTICE OF PROFESSOR LOEW

his heart, he finally felt that he could no longer endure endless
annoyances, and he sent in his resignation in 1868.

In the meantime his scientific work was going on incessantly,
and had earned him a universal reputation. His “ Dipterologische
Beitrage,” that appeared as a separate publication, and numerous
papers scattered over different periodicals, are considered as funda¬
mental. He published separate works on North American Diptera,
and their classification and description is, for the most part, his
work. By the introduction of the venation 1 as a systematic char¬
acter, very little valued before him, he founded a new branch of
this study. Many new species were discovered or described by him
for the first time. A still greater popularity was obtained by his
works on noxious insects, especially Cecidomyiae. lie also paid
attention to fossil insects, and particularly to those enclosed in
Amber and preserved in wonderful perfection. Through his inter¬
course with dealers in Amber he had formed a large collection of
such Amber mummies ; and I can remember him now, sitting at
his working-table, which was laden like a jeweller’s counter with
these brilliant objects, and examining them with his magnifying-
glass. These works on the Diptera of the Tertiary period, and
especially on the Amber Diptera, still await publication.2

In 1868, free from all official cares, he moved from Meseritz to
Guben. Here he had plenty of time to give himself up to his fa¬
vorite studies, working incessantly, and only now and then inter¬
rupting his work by scientific excursions in Germany and abroad.
His appearances at the yearly meeting of German naturalists are
remembered by his friends and colleagues. Of friends he had a
great many in all parts of the world, and his correspondents could
be counted by the hundred.

The claims of public life that could not spare his many-sided
knowledge and experience gradually again took possession of him.
Solicited by different associations, elected a City-Councillor and
Vice-President of the Council, he could not escape other engage¬
ments, and, after a long interval, he accepted a seat in the Lcgis-

1 About Loew’s treatment of the venation, I shall have something to say in my
“Characterization ” of him as a rlipterologist. — Osten Sacken.

2 Compare my Chapter IX on Loew’s work on Amber Diptera, etc. — Osten Sacken.

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

103

lature (in Berlin) for the district Sorau-Guben, and for the term
of 1873-1876. The dream of his youth was now fulfilled, and
he could, with a lighter heart than before, devote his labors to the
development of liberal institutions. He joined the National-
Liberal party.

During the summer of 1876, while he was staying at Blanken-
burg (Thliringen) on a holiday trip, he had a first paralytic stroke.
He recovered from this, but after that time these attacks on his
iron constitution recurred several times, until at last his once so
bright spirit yielded to the inexorable decrees of Fate. For this
gifted man, after years of toil, a brighter life’s evening was not to
be. His grave disorder overpowered him, and he sought succor and
rest in the “ Diaconissinnen-Haus ” in Halle on the Saale, hoping
thus to escape the mental derangement which he felt like a dark
shadow over him. From a fresh paralytic stroke he was not to
recover. Since the beginning of March, 1879, he remained confined
to his bed ; an exceedingly painful nephritic ailment aggravated
his condition, and, in spite of the tenderest care, he expired on the
21st of April, after several da}rs of unconsciousness. He was buried
on the 24th in Halle, the place where, half a century before, in the
fulness of youthful strength and spirits, he had laid the foundation
of his vast scientific knowledge. Bowed down by grief, his widow
and the three sons, survivors of seven children, stood around his
coffin ; they must have found consolation in the thought that thou¬
sands of friends, of political partisans, of naturalists, and of pupils
of all classes shared their sorrow and honored his memory.

XYI CHARACTERIZATION OF LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST1

In view of my purpose of giving an account of Loew’s life and
work, I was fortunate in finding his biography already written by
I)r. E. Krause, who knew him well and could appreciate him as a
man and as a citizen. During the twenty-nine years (1850-1879)

1 The numbers appended to Loew’s publications in this “ Characterization ” are
those of Hagen’s “ Bibliotheca,” as far as No. 124 ; beyond that, the Nos. 125-222 are
those of my “ Verzeichniss der entomologischen Schriften von H. Loew,” etc., in the
Verli. zool.-bot. Gesellsch., Wien, 1884, p. 455-404 (104, 1884).

104

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

that I had relations with Loew, I met him only live times (1859,
1865, 1871, 1872, and 1877), always at his place of residence (at
Meseritz, and afterwards at Guben), and each time only for a few
days. The impression he made upon me during these short inter¬
views is in perfect accordance with the pleasant portrait of him
drawn by Dr. Krause. It is to me a source of great regret that
the time of Loew’s last illness and death almost coincided with
my permanent establishment in Europe. A few years of close
communion with him would have brought us nearer to each other
in mutual appreciation, perhaps for the benefit of science, but most
surely it would have been for my own benefit to have held intimate
intercourse with a very superior man. My high esteem of Loew I
have shown in devoting twenty-one of the best years of my life
(1856-1877) to his service.

Before attempting to render an account of Loew’s career as a
dipterologist, I feel bound to define my qualification, as well as my
limitation, for such a task. My qualification consists in the twenty-
one years of collaboration with him in the work on North American
Diptera ; my limitation, in not having made a particular study of
European Diptera, so that I am unable to form, as a specialist, an
adequate opinion of the principal portion of his life’s work. This
limitation does not extend, however, to my criticisms of his views
on classification , as these are applicable to his work upon the faunae
of both continents.

What I intend to do is to show in what kind of work Loew's
great merit consists, and to point out, at the same time, in what
qualities he was deficient. T will show that his failings are princi¬
pally perceptible at the beginning of his career, while he was feel¬
ing his way, and, in his thirst for work, trying for it in different
directions, until he recognized his true vocation, descriptive dipter-
ology , and concentrated upon it his whole power, with marvellous
ardor and endurance. And I shall sum up by proving that his colos¬
sal descriptive work will be the permanent foundation of his fame.

At a time when, after Meigen’s retirement, European dipterology
threatened to remain at a standstill, and exotic Diptera were left
to the tender mercies of the respectable but very insufficient
Macquart, and to the mischievous activity of Walker, Loew ap-

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

105

peared and, in the interval between 1840 and 1878, produced nearly
6000 octavo and 1200 quarto pages of principally descriptive work,
comprising more than four thousand new European and exotic species
(fossil Diptera not included). Considering that this work, with, I
may say, one single exception (his publications on fossil Diptera),
was thoroughly conscientious, and showed throughout a remarkable
homogeneousness in the finish of its execution, we cannot refrain
from acknowledging the extent of the progress achieved, within
the interval of less than forty years, by the herculean effort of one
single man. What would have been the state of dipterology now,
if Loew had not appeared, and progress had depended on the efforts
of nationally isolated entomologists, men sometimes of undoubted
talent, like Robineau-Desvoidy , Say, Curtis , Holiday , and Ran¬
dom , but each one working in his own way, having his own system,
and his own particular terminology? I have quoted in my Chapter
XIV a passage from one of Loew’s letters to me, in which, at the
close of his own career (in 1878), he complained of the isolation of
dipterologists, who had formed, as he said, national corporations
(“ abgeschlossene Land mannschaf ten ”),each one following a sepa¬
rate system and nomenclature, “ a Babel-like confusion of lan¬
guages is the rule, and the collapse of the great tower of Babel
seems to be impending ! ” There is no doubt that, without the in¬
tervention of Loew after the retreat of Meigen, this state of things
would have been much worse.

After this general statement, I shall proceed with a survey of
Loew’s entomological publications.

As a naturalist, Loew had received an excellent training in the
University of Halle, where he had studied mathematics and natural
history. He could dissect, and was a skilful draughtsman. In
looking over the list of his earlier publications in Hagen’s “ Biblio¬
theca,” we find a number of purely anatomical papers among them
(I shall give their titles in English) : No. 5. On the genital organs
of female Diptera (1841) ; No. 7. Anatomy of the coleopteron
Buprestis mariana (1841) ; No. 8. On peculiar nerve-structures
in the genital organs of the females of some insects (1841) ; No.
10. Horae anatomicae, a separate work of 126 pages with plates, on
the anatomy of insects (1841) ; No. 15. On the so-called “ Saug-

106

LOEW AS A DIPTEEOLOGIST

magen ” (jabot, crop) of Diptera (1843) ; No. 16. Some anatomical
remarks about Neuroptera (1843) ; No. 54. Same subject (1848) ;
No. 107. On the halteres of Diptera (1858), a paper with the mere
negative result of refuting the view of Braxton Hicks, that they
were organs of smell.

These publications prove that, between 1841 and 1843, Loew
took a very lively interest in insect anatomy. The more strange
it is that this interest seems to have disappeared later, and that
Loew’s anatomical knowledge did not leave any apparent trace in
his later descriptive work, or in his views on classification. In
Loew’s Preface to the second edition of his “ Posener Dipteren ”
(1840), he intimates that, “ as a preliminary result of a considerable
number of anatomical researches,” an arrangement in many respects
more natural than Meigen’s might be brought about (compare
the whole passage, reproduced by me in Chapter VII). Loew never
kept this promise.

Loew did not publish much on the biology of insects. Of this
class of papers we find, in Hagen’s “ Bibliotheca” : —

No. 12. On the habit of Gelechia lappella Linn. (Microlepidop-
tera). ( Stett . Ent. Zeit., 1842.)

No. 13. Remarks on some larvae of Ceratopogon and Sciara
(ibid., 1843), a paper about which I shall have something to say
below.

No. 14. On the caprification of figs. (Ibid., 1843.)

Finally, under No. 48 (1847) we find a paper which, as we shall
presently see, was in its kind unique among Loew’s publications.
As it has been published in a rather inaccessible periodical, and has
for this reason remained almost unknown, I shall add a detailed
abstract of it here.

Mittheilungen iiber die Verwandlungsgeschichte einiger Insecten und iiber ihren
Haushalt auf Pfianzen

(Allgem. Deutsche Naturhist. Zeitung ; Dresden u. Leipzig, 2. Jahrg., 1847,
p. 287-301, with a plate.)

Loew begins with praising the growing taste for entomology in Germany, which
he attributes to the recent foundation of the Entomological Society in Stettin, and
the facilities it offers to students in promoting correspondence and exchange, pro¬
curing books, etc. He continues : “ The starting of two periodicals, the Stettiner

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

107

Zeitung and the Linnaea Entomologica, contributed to the increase of entomo¬
logical literature.1 The descriptive and systematic departments of entomology
have thus gained much, and it is to be regretted that the anatomical and biological
departments have not been equally favored. Little has been done in these depart¬
ments since the wonderful works of Reaumur and De Geer were published.
Unfortunately, these works were written before the development of the entomo¬
logical system, and for this reason the species described in them are not named.
Recently, naming has become easy, and biological observations should be en¬
couraged. One may be a good observer without possessing a vast entomological
knowledge. A good eye and an attentive watching of life in nature are sufficient.
Look sharply, describe accurately and immediately, draw what can be drawn, and
inquire from others without stint, whenever inquiry is necessary. . . . Things to
observe are so many, observers so scarce, that there is no need to fear repeating old
observations.” Loew recommends especially the study of the agency of insects
upon plants in the shape of deformations, galls, etc., and mildly reproaches
botanists with their preference for dried specimens. He offers several examples
of observations made by him during his rambles in the country, and adds that, if
they are well received, it would afford him pleasure to continue such publications.
This promise, as many other good intentions of Loew, was not fulfilled. The wise
advice he gives would be in keeping with the ways of Zeller, but not with those
of Loew, who, as we shall see in the sequel, cared very little for living Diptera, and
wanted them pinned as soon as possible. Observations of life require a repose
not consistent with Loew’s ever-restless disposition. And it is for this very
reason that I have called Loew’s No. 48 unique among his publications. It had
no successor.

Three paragraphs follow this Introduction of Loew’s No. 48 (1847) : —

- 1. Observations on Veronica anagallis. Description of two insects bred from
this plant: 1. Gymnetron villosulus (Curculionidae), the larva and pupa of which
are figured ; 2. A larva of Cecidomyia , which has not been bred.

2. Observations on Sonchus arvensis. Two Trypetae ( dilacerata , sp. n., and
sonchi ) and the fly Gitona distigma Meig. were obtained from swollen flower-
heads; details are figured.

3. Observations on Inula britannica. From galls upon this plant Loew had
bred Cecidomyia inulae , sp. n., and a minute bymenopterous parasite. Details are
figured.

The paper already quoted above : “ Remarks on some larvae of
Ceratopogon and Sciara ” QStett. Ent. Zeit., 1843, p. 27-31), deserves
especial notice, because it is the first in which Loew expresses him¬
self on some knotty points of classification. About Ceratopogon
this paper brings nothing new. It quotes Guerin, as describer of
the early stages of the genus, and omits to mention the earlier

1 This was written in 1847, that is, three j’ears before the rupture of all relations
between Loew and C.A. Dohrn, the President of the Entomological Society in Stettin.
— Osten Sacken.

108

LOEW AS A D1PTEKOLOGIST

observations of Bouchd (1837). In regard to the systematic posi¬
tion of Sciara , Loew, during his whole life-time, remained in an
incomprehensible perplexity, and made, as I shall show further on,
repeated and undeserved reproaches on this subject to Meigen and
Macquart. It is worthy of notice that in the same volume of the
Stettincr Zeitung (1843) in which the very unsatisfactory paper on
Ceratopogon and Sciara appeared, there are two other papers by
Loew which foreshadow his best manner, descriptive and critical
essays on Chrgsogaster and Milichia.

To Loew's work on the biology of Diptera must be referred the
following papers on the paedogenesis of Cecidomyiidae : —

No. 151 bis.1 Bericht liber die lebendig gebahrenden Dipteren-
Larven, etc., Berl. Ent. Zeit ., 1864, under the heading Neuere
Litteratur, p. v-x.

No. 166. Notiz liber eine neuere, die lebendiggebarenclen Dipte-
ren-Larven betreffende Publication (Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1865, p. 270).

Loew’s versatility appeared to advantage in several publications
on economic entomology : —

No. 97. Ueber die den Roggen, etc., verwiistende Fliegenmade.
Schles. Zeitschr. Ent., 1858. Cecidomyia secalina , sp. n.

No. 111. Die neue Kornmade, etc., 1859 ( Cecidomyia secalina
Loew). This paper was published in pamphlet form and, as Loew
informed me (March 18, 1859), proved a success ; 800 copies were
sold in less than four weeks.

No. 196. Thierische Parasiten (Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera,
etc.) — Jahrb. d. Landwirthschaft, Vol. Ill, 1870, p. 522-539. The
title is misleading, as the contents refer almost exclusively to insects
injurious to agriculture, and are principally extracts from other
publications. The Diptera are four Cecidomyiae, several Cldorops,
and Oscinis frit.

A work on “ Insects noxious to Agriculture,” prepared as a
prize-essay in collaboration with Schaum (already mentioned by me
in Chapter XIV) remained unpublished.

I shall endeavor now to give a survey of Loew’s work upon the

1 This paper was inadvertently omitted in my “ Verzeichniss,” etc., in the Verh.
zool.-bot. Gesellsch., Wien, 1884. This omission will be noticed under 104, 1884, of my
“ List.”

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

109

classification of Diptera, which, I regret to state in advance, was
not the department in which he was particularly successful.

In judging of Loew's attempts to classify the Nemocera, we must
distinguish the years before the beginning of his correspondence
with Haliday (in 1847) from those after this date. Before it, Loew
was under the influence of Westwood’s “ Introduction,” etc. (1840),
and especially of the concluding part of it, the “ Synopsis ” (at the
end of the second volume), which he erroneously attributed to
Haliday (comp. “ Dipterologische Beitriige,” Yol. I, p. 10 at top,
1845). In the very first letter of Haliday to Loew (September,
1847), there is a passage which proves that Haliday did not hold
himself responsible, for instance, for the connection of the Psycho-
didae with the Cecidomyiidae adopted by Westwood. Cecidomyia ,
Psychoda , Sciara (Molobrus Latr.), and Anarete Halid, had been
united by Westwood in his subfamily Cecidomyiinae (“Synopsis,”
p. 126, in Westwood’s Yol. II).

In his early papers, Loew betrays a remarkable want of method
in assuming relationships upon very vague indications, and attribut¬
ing too great an importance to superficial resemblances in the vena¬
tion. In his “ Beschreibung einiger neuen Gattungen der euro-
paischen Dipterenfauna ” ( Stett . Put. Zeit ., 1844, p. 117), he says:
“ I believe that this group, Psychodidae , can very well be united
with the Cecidomyiidae , as Westwood has done it ; the resemblance
of the early stages may even justify the connection of Sciara with
them.” On the next page (p. 118) he produces a tabular arrange¬
ment, very like that which appeared next year in his “ Dipterolo¬
gische Beitrage,” Yol. I, p. 10 (1845).

In the same article of 1844, Loew introduces the new genus
Liponeura (Blepliaroceridae) and brings it (p. 121-122) in connec¬
tion with Macropeza (a relative of Ceratopoyon ) and with Diamesa
(a relative of Chironomus'), a juxtaposition based merely upon the
venation. Loew says : “ These three genera form a peculiar little
group, and the question is, whether still other genera do not belong
to it.” Chenesia Macq. (which afterwards proved to be the same
as Orphnephila Hal.) is introduced into this same pretended group,
with the remark : “ I have no doubt that Simulium has a certain
relationship with the same genus ” ; upon which follows a discus-

110

LOEW AS A DIPTEKOLOGIST

sion about Simulium , containing a series of untenable propositions,
ancl among them that, on account of their three Afterklauen, they
should be placed among the Tip. Jiorales (Bibionidae, etc.). The
strange expression “ Afterklauen,” in this case, of course, must
mean pulvilli, and yet Simulium has no pulvilli, and only a rudi¬
mentary empodium. It is singular that Loew, as late as 1858, con¬
tinued to entertain the same erroneous notion about the pulvilli of
Simulium! (See Berl. But. Zeit ., 1858, p. 102, line 13.)

As I have said above, Loew all his life remained uncertain about
the true position of Sciara. In the already quoted paper in the
Stett. But. Zeit., 1843, p. 29, line 8, Loew reproaches Meigen with
having overlooked the close relationship between Sciara and
Lasioptera (!), and with having placed it near Mycetophila (in which
Meigen was right). He makes a very superficial comparison be¬
tween the pupae of Lasioptera and those of Sciara , and infers from
their supposed resemblance that there must be a relationship be¬
tween the imagos ! When he objects to Zetterstedt having called
Sciara a fungicole, he is right in so far only as its larva generally
feeds on decaying matter (including dry cow-dung) ; but it also
occurs in mushrooms (teste Dufour) 1 ; and at any rate Loew is in
error when on that account he refuses to Sciara a place among the
Mycetophilidae. lie quotes Macquart (“ Histoire Naturelle des
Insectes Dipt&res,” Vol. I, p. 126, 1834), who says that “ Sciarae,
in their organization, differ in some respects from the Mycetoplu-
lidae ” ( “ n’appartiennent pas entierement aux Tip. fungicoles "),
which, however, did not prevent Macquart from leaving them in
that family, to which they actually belong. In the “ Diptero-
logische Beitrage,” Vol. I, p. 10 (1845), Loew still entertains the
opinion that Sciara must be placed at the end of the Cecidomyiidae
and “ that the Psychodidae might very well (‘ ganz fiiglich ’) be
united with them in the same family, the principal character of
which would consist in the absence of a discal cell. ' An arrange¬
ment corresponding to this assumption (and which I have already

i Dufour says (.Inn. Set. Nat., 1880, p. 31, at top) : “If, as Mr. Macquart maintains,
tli e larvae of Sciara occur in turf (‘ tcrreau ’), this fact must not be generalized, for the
larvae of Sciara ingenua Duf. live in different kinds of mushrooms. ’ [I have also bred
Sciarae from mushrooms. — Osten Sacken.]

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

111

mentioned on a preceding page) was given on page 10 of the
“ Dipterologische Beitriige,” Yol. I (1845), where the whole group
Tipulae gallicolae is divided into Section I, Polyneura, containing
the Psychodidae, and Section II, Oliyoneura, containing the Ceci-
domyiidae , and including also Zygoneurci Meig. and Anarete Halid.
(Sciara is omitted in this table, perhaps from inadvertence). In
all these attempts an undue prominence is given to the venation.

The discussion in the “ Dipterologische Beitriige,” Yol. IV
(Cecidomyiidae, 1850, p. 17), contains the same assertions on the
close relationship between Psychodidae and Cecidomyiae , except
that here Loew allows himself to go a step farther, and to intro¬
duce his section Tip. gallic, polyneura (Psychodidae) as a separate
family : Tip. noctuaeformia. He says : “ The complicated struc¬
ture of the mouth-parts which enables some species to become
blood-suckers, and the observation that the larvae of some of them
(compare Schrank, ‘ Beitriige,’ p. 1) are aquatic and breathe with
branchiae, are decisive.”

The persistency of Loew in uniting the Psychodidae with the
Cecidomyiidae, as late as 1850, proves that he had not paid atten¬
tion to a passage in the first letter which Haliday had written to
him in September, 1847, and which I discovered among the manu¬
script annexes to that letter (compare my Chapter VIII, Haliday
and Loew). This passage, written in Latin, refers to Psychoda in
Curtis’s “ British Entomology, Diptera,” plate 745 (1839), and to its
letter-press, in which Haliday had introduced a subdivision of this
genus, adopting the new genera Saccopteryx , Trichomyia , and Sy co¬
rax. Haliday informs Loew in this passage that Psychoda, in the
narrower sense, as defined in Curtis, requires a further subdivision
into two genera: (1) Psychoda proper, and (2) Pericoma ; he adds
a short definition. This explains why, many years later, in Walker’s
“ Insecta Britarmica. Diptera,” Yol. Ill, p. 256, where Pericoma ap¬
pears for the first time in print, it is referred to as “ Haliday MSS.”
In the same passage of his letter Haliday says about the relationship
of the Psychodidae : “ Nexum hujus familiae cum Gallicolis probare
non queo, et si nomina clarissima Loewius, Westwoodius in illam
partem abierint.” He conjectures that these authors had been mis¬
led by the error of Bouch6 (“ exrore gravissimo permoti ”), who

112

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

figured the larva of Psyclioda as peripneustic. As these larvae are
amphipneustic, they are, according to Haliday, more allied to those
of the Tipulidae. And indeed, in Walker’s third volume (1856),
the Psychodidae , which Haliday now calls Phlebotomidae (after
Rondani), are placed next to the Tipulidae. But in the same
manuscript passage Haliday ventures a still bolder assertion (“ si
fas mihi audacter opinari "), that Psychodidae should be placed
somewhere near the Culicidae, as the latter have (“ Dufouro
docente ”) five Malpighian vessels, which agrees with what he had
found himself in dissecting Pericoma and Psyclioda (“ quod tarn in
Pericoma and Psyclioda valere comperi ”).1 The discovery of this
passage in Haliday’s letter of September, 1847, gave me great pleas¬
ure, because I had, independently of him, although many years
later, expressed the same opinion about the relationship of Psyclioda
with the Culicidae (in the Berl. Ent. Zeit ., 1892, p. 433, footnote ;
130, 1892).

Considering his solution as regards the connection between
Psychodidae and Cecidomyiidae as final, Loew (“ Dipterologische
Beitriige,” Vol. IV, p. 17, 1850) passes to what he considers the
more difficult question about the location of Sciara and Zygoneura
(Joe. cit., p. 17, at bottom) : “ The Sciarae, especially the more

delicate ones, closely resemble in their whole structure the gall¬
flies ; their venation shows hardly any difference from that of gall¬
flies with five-veined wings ; the apparently different structure of
their filiform, never verticillate antennae, loses much of its impor¬
tance when we consider that some gall-flies ( C. sarothamni , echii,
ribesii Meig.) show a similar structure ; the shape and mode of life
of the larvae of Sciara are not very different from those of gall-flies
(‘ nicht gar sehr verschieden ’) ; the spiracles in both are placed on
the sides of the single segments, and some of them, like the majority
of Cecidomyiae (e. g. Sc. pruinosa Bouchd), are able to spin,” etc.
After this long expose of the analogies, as if in justification of his
earlier opinion, Loew proceeds to explain the differential characters
of Sciara , as they had since become plain to him (the elongate

1 This statement about the Malpighian vessels Haliday reproduces in his admirable
paper, “On the affinities of the Aphaniptera among insects” (Nat. Hist. Review,
January, 185(5, p. 17, footnote).

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

113

coxae, the long spurs on the hind tibiae, the difference in the na¬
ture of the hairiness of the wings, the peculiar structure of the
larvae, especially of their head, the absence, in the pupa of Sciara ,
of tubular, horn-like prothoracic spiracles).1 He admits that, under
such circumstances, the partisans of the opinion that Sciara is a
Mycetophilid would be right, if the genus Zygoneura had not been
discovered in the meantime. It holds, according to him, an inter¬
mediate position. “ If Sciara is placed among the Mycetophilidae,
Zygoneura would more naturally have to remain among the Ceci-
domyiidae. For a final decision, we must wait for the discovery of
the early stages of Zygoneura .” — Now I had, in 1862, described
the early stages of this genus (in my above-quoted paper on the
larvae of Mycetophilidae'), and had shown that the larva of Zygo¬
neura is quite like that of a Sciara , and the pupa shows the horn¬
like thoracic spiracles which occur in some species of Sciara (comp,
figure 22 at the bottom of my plate). And many years after me,
Beling (T Viener Ent. Zeit ., 1885, p. 308) likewise described the larva
of Zygoneura as being exactly like that of Sciara (“ der Larva einer
Sciara vollkommen gleich gestaltet ”).

In 1862 (“Monographs North American Diptera,” Yol. I), Loew
finally placed Sciara among the Mycetophilidae , but, nevertheless,
again with the remark (p. 13), “ that it shows some affinity with
the Cecidomyiidae .” Whether this change of opinion had any con¬
nection with my publication on the larva of Zygoneura in the same
year, I am unable to ascertain. And yet notwithstanding this
affinity between Mycetophilidae and Cecidomyiidae thus correctly
indicated, Loew placed the two families very far from each other,
the Blepharoceridae , Psyclwdidae, and Tipulidae intervening be¬
tween them ! Thus the same Loew who had reproached Meigen
with overlooking a pretended close relationship between Lasioptera
and Sciara , and taunted Zetterstedt for considering Sciara as a
fungicole, Loew, twenty years later, lost in his perplexities, had
not reached any definite conclusion about Sciara ! Ilaliday in

1 In this Loew was mistaken ; the pupae of some Sciara have such tubular spira¬
cles, as Loew himself had stated in the Stett. Ent. Zeit., 1813, p. 30. Compare also my
paper: “On the larvae of Mycetophilidae ” (15, 1862), or its reprint (113, 1886). The
references will be found on p. 158 and 165 of my original edition, and on p. 11 and 17
of the reprint.

8

114

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

the meantime (in Walker’s “ Insecta Britannica. Diptera,” Yol.
Ill, p. 72, 1856) had correctly placed the Cecidomyiidae alongside
of the Mycetophilidae , and referred Sciara and Zygcneura to the
latter family.

Compared with other genera of Mycetophilidae , the position of
which in this family has never been doubtful, Sciara is but very
little aberrant. Its larva is much more like that of a true Myce-
tophila , than the larvae of some other, undoubted Mycetophilidae ,
like Sciophila, Bolitophila , Ceroplatus, without mentioning Myce-
tohia. Meigen had established a separate family, “ Trauermiicken,”
( Lugubri ) for Sciara (“ Systematische Beschreibung,” Yol. I,
p. xxxvi, 1818), and had observed in a footnote : “ Latreille
wrongly unites this genus ( Molohrus Latr. — Sciara ), and also
Rhyphus , with the Mycetophilidae.'’'’ Winnertz and Riibsaamen
( Berl . But. Zeit ., 1894, p. 19), with regard to Sciara, have fol¬
lowed Meigen. But Haliday, Macquart, and Scliiner were right
in following Latreille.

If I have insisted upon Loew’s earlier utterances concerning
questions of classification, it is because they contain much that
foreshadows his later career in this specialty : his want of method,
his inability to lay hold of the leading characters, and, as a con¬
sequence, his irresolution, combined at the same time with an
habitual acerbity of his often unjust criticisms of other authors.

Many other instances may be adduced to prove that Loew was
less gifted with a spontaneous insight into the natural affin¬
ities of Diptera than his contemporaries, Robineau-Desvoidy and
Rondani.

In my chapter on Rondani (Chapter XIX) I shall give a detailed
account of the unjust and arbitrary proceedings of Loew towards
him in regard to the subdivision of the Cecidomyiae. The sections
of Cecidomyiae and Lestremmae , correctly defined by Rondani as
early as 1840, Loew at first called a useless splitting (“ Zersplitte-
rung,” Stett. Ent. Zeit., 1847, p. 146, line 6). Ilis next step (1850),
when better informed, was to recognize that Rondani was right,
but that the name Lestreminae should be changed into Anaretina ;
finally in the “ Monographs,” Yol. I, p. 7 (1862), he adopted Ron-
dani’s subdivision and its definition, without the slightest aeluiowl-

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

115

edgment to him, maintaining at the same time the change of name.
This change was unfortunate, because Loew’s pretended Anarete
proved, much later, not to be the Anarete of Haliday at all ! Mr. J.
J. Ivieffer, in 1898, discovered a Cecidomyid in which he recognized
Anarete Loew, but did not succeed in identifying it with Anarete
Halid. ; he applied to me (January 24, 1898) for an explanation, and
I referred him to my statement in the Berl. Ent. Zeit ., 1892, p. 451
(130, 1892), where I had proved that Schinerwas right in referring
Anarete Halid, to the Scatopsina. Whereupon Ivieffer proposed
the name Pseudanarete (in litteris) for the genus of Loew. I am
not aware that he has published it since.

In consequence of Loew’s erroneous determination of Haliday’s
Anarete , the following passage in “ Dipterologische Beitrage,” Yol.
IV, p. 19, 1850, requires a correction : “ Attention should be called
to the hitherto entirely overlooked relationship of the Cecidomyiae
with the genus Seatopse ; the venation of Lestremia and Anarete is
like that of Seatopse, etc.” This Anarete Loew is the Cecidomyid
Pseudanarete Ivieffer (in litteris'). If Loew had had the true Anarete
Halid., he would have been right in connecting it with Seatopse.
As it is, the comparison which he draws between Cecidomyia and
Seatopse has no foundation. Seatopse being a close relative of
Bibio, as Loew himself had recognized in his paper in the Linnaea ,
Yol. I, p. 324 (1846), it would follow from his conclusion that Bibio
is a relative of Cecidomyia, which is a reductio ad absurdum.

Still later, in 1858, Loew suggested other unexpected and fanci¬
ful ideas about the relationship of the Bibionidae. It was his fixed
but erroneous notion that the structure of the antennae constitutes
the only difference between the Nemoeera and Brachycera, and
hence, as late as 1858, we find in his paper : “ Ueber einige neue
Fliegengattungen” (Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1858), on p. 102, at the bottom,
the following incongruous passage about the genus Rhachicerus
Halid., and the Amber genera Chrysothemis and Electra Loew.

“ These three genera have their natural position among the Xyluphagidae ,
which is indicated by the structure of their mouth, as far as it is known.
But the circumstance that this arrangement tends somewhat to obliterate
tbe line of separation between the two principal divisions of Diptera, was
the only reason which induced me, in my paper on Amber, to admit Chryso -

116

LOEW AS A DIPTEEOLOGIST

themis and Electra among the Nemocera, and to place them, notwithstand¬
ing their complicated venation, at the end of the family Bibionidae. In
that paper I thought it convenient to adopt this arrangement for the benefit
of those who had not made the Diptera their special study, the more as the
transition from the Nemocera to the Brachycera is effected by the Bibionidae
on the one side, and the Xylophagidae on the other, and because, in that
paper, I had placed the Bibionidae at the end of the one division, and
the Xylophagidae at the beginning of the other. That the three genera,
j Rhachicerus, Ohrysothemis, and Electra, find their natural position among
the Xylophagidae, I have never called in doubt.”

Such were the confused notions of Loew on the true characters
of the two fundamental divisions of Diptera, after eighteen years
of study of this Order ! He persisted in these same notions in his
lecture on Amber Diptera at the meeting of the German Associa¬
tion of Naturalists in Konigsberg (1860), and in the Preface of the
“ Monographs North American Diptera,” Yol. I, p. 3-4, 1862. In
this last work he says : “ It is a fact that some discoveries made
in modern times have obliterated to a certain degree the sharpness
of the limit which was considered to exist between the Nemocera
and BrachyceraB And farther on: “All these facts, however, are
not sufficient to compel us at present to give up the separation
of the Nemocera and Braclujcera .” In my Introduction to this
“ Record,” p. 11, 1 have referred to a passage in Loew’s letter to me,
dated July 25, 1860, in which he formally expresses the opinion that
“ the coalescence of Nemocera and Brachycera is an accomplished
fact,” and that he would have introduced it into the new Catalogue
of North American Diptera, if he had been the author of it. In
one of the last letters I received from Loew, in August, 1877
(already quoted by me on p. 97), he mentions some of his nearly
finished, or unfinished papers, and among them of “ preparations
for a reform (‘ Neubearbeitung ’) of the System of Diptera, for the
intended new edition of your Catalogue of North American Diptera.”
After all the utterances of Loew quoted by me above, there can
be no doubt that the intended reform would have consisted in the
coalescence of the two principal divisions of Diptera!

Loew would not have fallen into this capital error if he had con¬
sulted Latrei lie’s “ Genera,” etc. (1809), p. 238, where the concept
of the Nemocera Latreille (which at that time were called Tipulaires )

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

117

was based on the number of joints, not of the antennae only but
also of the palpi. The name Nemocera was introduced by Latreille
for the same concept eight years later, in 1817. (For details,
compare my paper: “On the characters,” etc., in Berl. Ent. Zeit .,
1892, p. 413-422; 130, 1892.)

As in my translation of the above quoted passage I have rendered the sense
of Loew as clearly as possible without attempting to be literal, I reproduce here
the German original: “ Alle clrei Gattungen haben ihre natiirliche Stellung bei
den Xylophagiden, auf welche auch der Ban der Mundtheile, soweit er bekannt
ist, hinweist. Nur der Umstand, dass dadurch die Granzlinie zwischen den beiden
Hauptabtheilungen der Diptern etwas verwischt wird, hat mich bestimmt in meiner
Schrift iiber den Bernstein die Gattungen Chrysothemis und Electra den Xemoceren
beiznrechnen, und sie trotz dem zusammengesetzten Fliigelgeader als letzte Gat¬
tungen zu den Bibioniden zu bringen ; ich glaubte dort mir dies denen zu Gunsten
erlauben zu konnen, welche sich nicht speciell mit dem Studium der Diptern
besch'aftigen, da in der That der TJebergang von den Nemoceren zu den Brachy-
ceren durch die Bibioniden einerseits und (lurch die Xylophagiden andererseits
vermittelt wird, und da ich in jener Schrift erstere mit den Bibioniden schloss und
letztere mit den Xylophagiden begann. Dass die drei Gattungen Rachicerus ,
Chrysothemis und Electra ihren natiirliehen Platz aber durchaus nur bei den
Xylophagiden haben, ist mir nie zweifelhaft gewesen.”

I have mentioned (p. 109) Loew’s attempt in 1844 to connect
the newly discovered genus Liponeura with Macropeza , Diamesa ,
and other genera, which have nothing to do with it. Several years
later Loew became more intimately acquainted with the Blepharo-
ceridae , and published two successive monographs of them (1869
and 1877). In these papers we find him hesitating in the choice
of a character for a primary subdivision. In the first paper, pub¬
lished in Ilaliday’s Italian translation of it, he adopted as such the
length of the proboscis ; in the second, he made use for the same
purpose of the spurs at the end of the hind tibiae. In my succes¬
sive papers (60, 1878 ; 124, 1891 ; 144, 1895) on the same subject,
beginning with the first, which appeared a year after Loew’s last
paper, I have shown that, for a primary divisional character of the
family, the presence or absence of the incomplete vein near the
posterior margin, as far as our present knowledge goes, is more
satisfactory than the characters proposed by Loew. A singular
proof of Loew’s too great reliance on the venation, as an index of
relationship, I find in a letter to me (October 1, 1858), written

118

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

just after he had received the remarkable Blepharocerid Hammathor-
rhina from Ceylon. lie discovered in this insect a relationship
with Cecidomyia (“ ein Fingerzeig nach Cecidomyia ”), a surmise
which, of course, had no other foundation than a superficial re¬
semblance of the incomplete venation of this genus with that of
some Cecidomyiae.

In my paper, “ Contribution to the Study of Liponeuridae ” ( Berl.
JSnt. Zeit., 1895; 144, 1895), I published (p. 163-165) a criticism
of Loew’s erroneous synonymy of Blepharocera fasciata and of
Liponeura cinerascens. This very intricate case occurred during
Loew’s latest period, when he was already disabled by illness, and
is therefore easily excusable.

Concerning Loew’s constant and total neglect of the Tipulidae ,
I shall only recapitulate what I have said before in Chapter II.
Loew's first attempt at a classification of this family appeared in
his paper: “Ueber den Bernstein und die Bernsteinfauna ” (1850).
Of the utterly unscientific method used by him in introducing this
classification I have given an account, based upon his own confes¬
sion (compare Chapter IX). Since that first attempt, Loew seems
to have conceived a singular aversion for any study, or improve¬
ment, of the classification of the Tipulidae , as if he felt equally
reluctant to give up his own work, or to have it demolished by
others. I cannot otherwise explain the supercilious treatment he
gave to my classification of this family. I have shown elsewhere
(p. 63) that in Dr. Peters’s “ Reise in Mozambique” (1862) Loew
had published, under the generic name of Limnobia in the widest
sense of Meigen, a Tipulid which belonged to the section Aniso-
merina. I have also shown (p. 64) that, during more than fifteen
years, Loew had taken for congeneric the Amber Tipulid which he
called Toxorrhina, and a recent Tipulid from the West Indies,
which he had described and figured under the same name, although
the former has a normal, and the latter a totally different and very
anomalous venation. It was towards the end of his career only
that Loew showed me some justice, and urged me to overhaul his
Amber Tipulidae and to apply to them my systematic arrangement
(see p. 66, above).

About the work of Loew on the classification of the Orthor-

LOEW AS A DIPTEKOLOGIST

119

rhapha Brachycera , I shall be less circumstantial, as my acquaint¬
ance with this suborder is comparatively limited.

It could not have been expected that in 1860-1862 (in the “ Dip-
teren-Fauna Siidafrika’s ” and in “Monographs,” Vol. I, p. 15—
18) Loew should have had a clear insight into the grouping of
the Beridina , Xylophagidae , and Chiromyzi d a e , for it is not quite
cleared up to this day ; and yet he might have avoided the mistakes
of placing Chiromyza among the Beridina (“ Dipteren-Fauna Siid¬
afrika’s,” p. 1, 1860) ; of confounding ( ibidem ) Metoponia Macq.
(an Australian Cliiromyzid) with the North American Berid, Beris
fuscitarsis Say (for which I later proposed the generic name Allo-
gnosta, Berl. Ent. Zeit ., 1888, p. 297) 1 ; and of not noticing that
Latreille’s Xylophagus is our Subula , and that his Bachystomus is
nothing but our Xylophagus described from a specimen with muti¬
lated antennae (compare Osten Sacken, Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1882, p.
379). The fact that the family Xylophagidae had no consistency
whatever, being based upon an erroneous juxtaposition of two very
different forms, Xylophagus and Subula , was at that tune perhaps not
obvious enough for Loew to perceive. About the Sections Sar-
gina , Odontomyina , and Pachygastrina , Loew has produced excel¬
lent descriptive work.

In preparing his monograph of the European Tabanidae (1858),
Loew did not notice that the development of the ocellar tubercle,
combined with other characters, offers a very good basis for the
establishment of a separate genus. This oversight led him to
reject the genus Therioplectes proposed by Zeller sixteen years
before, without perceiving that, as I have later shown, a slight
modification of the definition makes this genus answer its purpose
very well. Compare my Prodromus of the Tabanidae (1875), p.
425 (43, 1875).

1 In the “Dipteren-Fauna Siidafrika’s” (1860), p. 1 at bottom, Loew says that
Metoponia Macq. is much more related to Beris, than to Chiromyza, a statement which
is erroneous, because based upon the misinterpretation of the genus Metoponia. What
Loew further says in the same place, “ that Inopus Walk. (Ins. Saund.) is the same as
Metoponia Macq.,” is incomprehensible, because Metoponia Loew (nec Macq.) is Allo-
rjnosta O. S., and the latter genus has nothing to do with Inopus Walk. As to the true
Australian Metoponia Macq., “ Diptera Exotica,” Suppl., Vol. II, p. 28, Tab. I, f. 4, it is
quite different from Inopus, has a different venation, and belongs to the Chiromyzidae.

120

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

In 1872, Loew described a North American Chrysops ( C. gigan-
lulits ). In working up my Californian collection of Diptera, I
described the same species as Silvius trifolium, sp. n., because it
never occurred to me to look for it among the described species of
Chrysops. During our interview in Guben (in 1877), I asked
Loew for the reason of this strange location by him of gigantulus.
He merely answered, “ It does not look like a Silvius at all.” But
it looks still less like a Chrysops !

In his “ Dipteren-Fauna Siidafrika’s ” (1860), Loew introduced
two sections of the Cyrtidae : Oncodina and Cyrtina. This sub¬
division is reproduced in “ Monographs,” I, p. 21 (1862). As it
was based merely upon the venation, which is very unsteady in this
family, the subdivision soon proved a failure. According to this
grouping, the closely allied genera Philopota W. and Helle O. S.
would have to be placed in two different sections ; Schiner’s sub¬
division (“ Diptera Novara,” p. 140-145, 1858) seems to be more sat¬
isfactory, at least in the adoption of the natural section Philopotina.
It is remarkable that in all his papers on Cyrtidae , in which Loew
had described sixteen species, he had never noticed that the first
posterior cell, in all the known species of that family, is bisected
by a cross-vein, which is, so far as known, a character peculiar to
the family. When I first noticed this character in preparing my
(as yet unpublished) paper on Cyrtidae, I was much puzzled by
Loew’s description and figure of Pitliogaster ( Opsebius Costa)
annulatus Loew ( Wien. Put. Monats., 1857, p. 83, Tab. I, f. 1) in
which that supplementary cross-vein is neither figured, nor men¬
tioned in the letter-press, so that at first I took this case for an
exception to the rule. In examining since Loew’s type-specimens
in the Berlin Museum, I ascertained that the cross-vein is present ,
and, therefore, that Loew had not noticed it !

It would almost seem as if Loew’s exuberant working-power
made him impatient of any delay, and drove him to begin with
describing before having mastered his subject by preparatory
study. This haste is most conspicuous in one of his principal
works, I may say his life-work, the Monograph of the European
Asilidae (“Ueber die europaischen Raubfliegen,” in the Linnaea
Entomologica, Vols. II, III, IV, V, 1847-1851). Loew, who

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

121

was always recommending the use of what he called plastic de¬
scriptive characters, did not perceive in this case the difference
between macrochaetae and ordinary bristles, and thus missed one
of the most useful descriptive characters in this family. The short
prefatory notice (of only eight pages) preceding the descriptive por¬
tion of his work on Asilidae ( Linnaea , Yol. IT, p. 384-392, 1847)
is nothing but a rather superficial survey of previous publications.
It also contains a paragraph on “Nomenclature,” establishing rules
which Loew himself, in later years, has not observed. A few
years before, in 1840, in the Preface of his second edition of the
“ Posener Dipteren,” Loew had likewise proposed a very inexpe¬
dient rule of nomenclature, which he never followed afterwards.
(Compare my paper in the Berl. Eat. Zeit ., 1896, p. 284, in the foot¬
note ; 153, 1896.)

It was in that portion of his Monograph only in which Loew
reached the difficult Section of Asilina, that he found it necessary
to explain himself more distinctly on the use of the terms referring
to bristles, hairs, etc., which play so prominent a part in the de¬
scriptive paragraphs of that section. This explanation ( Linnaea ,
Yol. Ill, p. 419-421), for the reason already stated, the inattention
to macrochaetae, must be considered as a failure. Three years be¬
fore this publication of Loew, Rondani ( Nuov . Ann. Sci. Nat.,
Bologna, 1845), in a paper on Tachinidae, had distinguished ma¬
crochaetae from ordinary hairs and bristles, and introduced this
term for them, and it is to be regretted that, after this good begin¬
ning, he lias not developed the advantages of this innovation, and
has not made use of it in his later publications. (A detailed notice
of this paper of Rondani in 1845 will be found in my Chapter
XIX.) Loew was in possession of Rondani’s paper, but, instead
of paying attention to this important progress, he contented him¬
self with eleven lines of supercilious and flippant criticism of it
in his general article upon Rondani’s publications in the Stett.
Eat. Zeit., 1847, p. 155.

In my “Essay of comparative Chaetotaxy,” etc. (102, 1884), I
have taken notice of Loew's neglect of macrochaetae in the follow¬
ing terms : —

122

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

“ There is a mine of systematic characters yet to he explored in the study of
the Chaetotaxy of the Asilidae. As an instance I will cite Dasypogon diadema
and D. teutonus , placed by Loew in the same ultimate subdivision of Dasypogon
( sensu stricto ) ; a glance at the Chaetotaxy of these species shows that I>. teutonus
has no bristles on the scutellum, while in D. diadema the scutellum is beset with
4-6 strong macrochaetae. A further examination reveals other abundant differ¬
ences in the arrangement of the bristles on the thorax and on the legs ; it dis¬
closes at the same time other characters peculiar to each of the species, in the
shape of the abdomen, in the structure of the forceps of the male, etc., — all of
which tend to prove that these species belong to two very distinct genera. And
yet, when we read the descriptions (not excepting even those of Loew), we find
almost nothing but colors mentioned.”

There is no doubt that Loew’s work on European Asiliclae , in
bringing together a mass of new material satisfactorily (for the time
being) grouped and described, represented, when it was published, a
considerable progress, and rendered a real service to European dip-
terology. But it must be acknowledged at the same time that,
considering the large amount of material Loew had at his disposal,
he might have done more for the classification of the family in gen¬
eral, and thus paved the way for dipterologists of other parts of
the world besides Europe.

The above paragraph was already written when I received the April number of
the Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1899. It contains an article by Mr. F. Hendel of Vienna :
“ Ein verschollener Asilus Central- Europa’s.” The author shows that the concepts
of several of the genera, carved out by Loew from the old genus Asilus, are very
indefinite and unsatisfactory, and that Loew himself, when he obtained new species,
was doubtful in which of these genera to place them.

In attempting to subdivide the Bombyliidae, Loew met with many
perplexities. In the Linnaea , Yol. I (1846), p. 371, he said : “ The
separation of the genus Lomatia from Anthrax will be very diffi¬
cult to maintain, as both, although sufficiently distinguished in
their European representatives, seem to coalesce so much in their
exotic species that the limit between them becomes very indefi¬
nite.” Loew was not more advanced fourteen years later in the
“ Dipteren-Fauna Stidafrika’s,” I860, p. 176, at top. Here lie
closes a very long discussion with the humble confession that
“ finally nothing remains to be done but to be governed by a cer¬
tain instinct in distinguishing the general appearance (‘ Gesammt-
habitus ’), like that of Bombylius , from that of an Anthrax. . . .

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

123

That such a subdivision would be quite arbitrary, and without any
scientific value whatever, is self-evident. ” My own little experience
of the Bombyliidae has taught me that a subdivision of them, not
into two, but into several groups is quite feasible. Schiner had
paved the way towards such a subdivision in his “ Novara Diptera,”
p. 116 (1868), and, eighteen years later, I have added my mite of
suggestions in the chapter on Bombyliidae in the Biol. Centr. Amer.
Diptera (1886), p. 75-162.

One of Loew’s favorite subjects was the family Dolichopodidae.
As I have not made a thorough and independent study of this
family, I shall confine myself here to bringing together a few liter¬
ary data which may be useful in future.

Loew’s last and principal work on this family is contained in the
second volume of the “Monographs of North American Diptera,”
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, January, 1864. The volume
had already gone through the press when a Supplement came in
from Loew, containing descriptions of some new species sent to him
by me in the meantime, and also a chapter of “ General remarks on
the generic characters.” This Supplement will be found at the end
of the volume, accompanied by a footnote signed by me (p. 321).

This publication offers the most complete and matured exposition
of Loew’s views on the classification of the Dolichopodidae.

The family (loc. cit ., p. 14) is divided into two large divisions,
distinguished from each other by a single character: the presence,
or absence, of short hairs on the upper side of the first joint of the
antennae. The consequence of this subdivision is that the genus
Argyra Macq. is cut in two : the larger part of it appears (loc. cit.')
in the first division, as Gen. XI V, Argyra , and the rest in the second
division, as Gen. XX VI, Leucostola. On p. 151 of the same volume,
under the heading of Leucostola , we find this statement: “The
close relationship of the genus Leucostola to that of Argyra can
be easily perceived by a comparison of their characters. There is
scarcely any difference between them, but that the first joint of the
antennae of Leucostola is entirely without any hair, while in Argyra
it is distinctly covered with hair.” Such a statement contains in
itself a condemnation of the subdivision proposed by Loew for the
family! What process of reasoning may have induced Loew to

124

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

adopt it? In the paper: “Die Familie der Dolichopodiden ”
(“Neue Beitrage,” Vol. 1857), the earliest monographic pub¬
lication of Loew on this family, I find a passage about this same
character which, nevertheless, does not afford the desired expla¬
nation ; on p. 39, line 12, in discussing Argyra , Loew says:
“ Among the common species, Argyra vestita forms an exception
in the bareness of the upper side of the first joint of the antennae.
In all other characters ... it agrees so well with the typical
species of Argyra , that I would have willingly (‘gerne’) left it
in the same genus. The bareness or hairiness of the first joint of
the antennae is such an important character for the often difficult
determination of female specimens, that species which do not agree
in this character cannot possibly be generically united. It becomes
therefore necessary to form a separate genus for this species, for
which I accept the very characteristic name Leucostola proposed by
Mr. Haliday.”

The weakness of this reasoning is evident. Should it even be
proved that the character in question is available for the genus
Argyra , it does not follow that it can, without any further discus¬
sion, be applied to the whole family of Dolichopodidae. Neverthe¬
less, four years later, we find this character adopted in the monograph
of the North American Dolichopodidae, published in German
(“Neue Beitrage,” Vol. VIII, 1861, p. 1), and afterwards in the
Synoptic Table of the English edition of the same monograph
(“Monographs of North American Diptera,” Vol. II, 1864), as I
have shown above. Schiner (“Fauna Austriaca,” Vol. I, p. 188)
was therefore quite right in not adopting the genus Leucostola.

In the collection of letters addressed by Haliday to Loew on dipterologi cal sub¬
jects (and now in possession of Mr. Veri-all, see above, p. 51), the discussions about
Dolichopodidae occupy a considerable space. In a letter dated from Dublin, Nov.
22, 1856, I found the following passage, which I reproduce exactly as it stands,
without quite understanding its meaning (the italics are Halidav’s): “ I scarcely
expect that the character of the naked or pubescent 1st joint of the antennae will
seem to you of the weight I have ventured to give it, but will ask of you to ex¬
amine the result , as to the group it defines, and tell me if it does not indicate pretty
truly a series of affinities which may be probably better defined by some other char¬
acter. I admit, one or two instances, already known to me, seem to militate against
it, e. gr. Argyra vestita , separated in a different tribe from the rest of the genus as
received, etc.”

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

125

As this letter of Haliday, dated November 22, 1856, was closely followed by
Loew’s monographic publication on European Dolichopodidae in the “ Neue
Beitrage,” Vol. V, 1857, it would appear that Loew in this case was under the
influence of Haliday. However, the same letter of Haliday contains a scheme of a
distribution of Dolichopodidae into sections, in the synoptic table of which the
pubescence or bareness of the first joint of the antennae plays an important part,
but is not the basis for a primary subdivision, as it is in Loew’s table. •

This collection of letters will probably afford an abundant material to the future
student for the investigation of the influence upon each other of the two eminent
dipterologists in the classification of the Dolichopodidae , but such an investigation
is entirely beyond my competence.

In the Empidae (in the broadest sense), Loew, so far as I can
judge, has done excellent descriptive work, both for Europe and
for North America. But, in the “Monographs of North American
Diptera,” Vol. I, 1862, he committed a mistake in not following
Haliday (“ British Entomology. Diptera,” Vol. 1, 1851), and in not
uniting into a single family the Hybotidae , Tacky dromidae, and Em¬
pidae. I have already alluded to this subject, above, on p. 49, in
the Chapter VII (“ Historical and critical remarks,” etc.) in which
I have introduced some criticisms of the generally unsatisfactory
classification of the Diptera OrthorrkapJia in that volume of the
“ Monographs.”

In working up the North American Syrphidae , Loew, to use his
own expression (in l Uteris ) “ stuck in a jungle of uncertainty ” in
attempting to disentangle the existing descriptions of the North
American species of Syrphus (in the narrowest sense). With more
material at my disposal, I succeeded better in this task, and thus
excited Loew’s astonishment to such a degree that it may have
been the cause of the unexpected rupture of his correspondence
with me, which was resumed only two years later. (The story of
this curious incident has been related by me in detail in Chapter
XII.)

Loew, as he once admitted to me in conversation, had made but
very little study of the Calyptrata (in Rob.-Desvoidy’s sense) and
he therefore did not publish much about them. His papers on the
genera llomalomyia and Azelia are praised by a specialist, Mr. P.
Stein. This author, in his paper on “North American Ant/io-
myiidae ” ( Berl . Ent. Zeit ., 1898), complains of Mr. E. Walker’s nu¬
merous descriptions and adds : “ How different, in comparison, are

126

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

the descriptions of Loew, in which it is almost impossible to mis¬
take the species. And it is for this reason very much to be regretted
that this veteran in dipterology had no taste for Anthomyiidae , as
appears from a very drastic utterance which he made to my
respected friend von Iloder in Hoyrn, when the name of the genus
was mentioned : ‘ Preserve me from that vermin ’ (‘ Gelien Sie
mir mit dem Geschmeiss’) ! It is indeed remarkable that Loew
persistently resisted the attraction which the unsightly but interest¬
ing Anthomyiidae afford, and, with the exception of a few genera
( Homalomyia , Azelia , Lispe ), would never have anything to do
with them. The few descriptions of North American Anthomyiidae
which he gave in the ‘ Centuriae ’ leave nothing to desire (‘ sind
mustergiiltig ’).”

Loew's new genus Blaesoxipha ( Sarcophagidae , 1861) provoked
an apparently well-merited criticism of Schiner ( Verh. zool.-bot.
Gresellsch., Wien, 1863, p. 1037).

Loew’s held of predilection (and the one in which he excelled)
was minutiae , as he himself says in his letter to me of November
10, 1862 (already quoted on p. 50) : “ Minutiae are my true spe¬
cialty, particularly when they fall within the domain of the Acalyp-
trata ! ” This preference may be explained by the fact that
Acalyptrata , in general, offer characters more definite and easier to
get hold of than some families with species of larger dimensions.
Genera and species of Tabanidae and Asilidae , for instance, are
more difficult to define (so as to he recognizable in a description)
than most of the Acalyptrata ( Ortalidae , Trypetidae, Helomyzidae ,
Ephydridae , etc.). For Loew’s keen eye, size made no difference;
but owing to his very moderate ability to discern leading characters,
he was led instinctively to recognize that his work on Acalyptrata
was more satisfactory to himself than perhaps any other work, and
hence in the latter part of his career he became especially devoted
to it. In the Acalyptrata , macrochaetae are less mixed up with
other hairs, and, I may say, obtrude themselves more easily upon
the attention. This explains why Loew began to make a regular
use of macrochaetae in his descriptions of Acalyptrata, and espe¬
cially in his paper “On the European Ilelomyzidae” ( Sc hies .
Zeitschr. Ent ., 1859). But he did not, by far, exhaust this new

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

127

resource, even in this paper. If he had reduced Chaetotaxy to a
system, he would have found it most serviceable in his later works.
The thoracic bristles, for instance, were too much neglected by him
in his publications on Ortalidae.

Of Loew’s greatest delusion, the supposed coalescence of the
two larger divisions adopted by Latreille, Nemocera and non-
Nemocera (Brachycera Macq.), I have already spoken above, on
p. 48, as well as in my “ Introduction,” p. 11. Macquart showed
a clearer insight into that matter when he said (in his “ Insectes
Dipteres du Nord de la France,” 1823) “ that the Nemocera con¬
stituted almost a different order, and that the difference between
them and the other Diptera might almost be compared to that
between the Hymenoptera, for instance, and the Neuroptera.”
(This passage has been quoted by me in the Berl. Eat. Zeit ., 1892,
p. 419 ; 130, 1892).

If Loew (as I said on p. 106) did not publish much on the
biology of Diptera, it was because he seems, in general, to have
taken but little interest in living Diptera, and in this he stood in
striking contrast to Zeller. Loew’s principal preoccupation when
he was in the field, hunting flies, seems to have been to bag as many
as possible. A characteristic paper in this respect is his “ Eine
dipterologische Razzia auf dem Gebiete des naturw. Vereins fur
Sachsen und Thiiringen ” ( Zeitschr . gesammt. Naturw., August,
1857). Loew reproaches the local “Natural History Society of
Saxony and Thiiringen ” with their sluggishness in collecting Dip¬
tera, and shows them what can be done in their district. lie
spent a week in July in collecting near Wernigerode, in Prussian
Saxony. The season notwithstanding, which during that year
had everywhere been unusually unfavorable for insects (“ ein
besonderes insectenarmes Jahr”), and in spite of the unpropitious
weather, which prevailed during the week of his collecting, Loew
caught two hundred and forty-seven species of Brachycera alone,
of which he published an annotated list. He did not count the
Diptera which he had merely seen, but not caught (“ Die Aufzah-
lung von mir bios gesehener Dipteren scheint mir bedenklich,”
etc.). Among the captured Diptera seven species were described

as new.

128

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

Another exploit of the same kind is related in the article,
“ Ueber die, etc., auf der Ziegelwiese bei Halle beobachteten
Dipteren” (in the same Zeitschr. gesammt. Naturw ., 1864, p. 377-
396). Like the preceding article, this was written for the edifi¬
cation and encouragement of the same Saxo-Thiiringian Natural
History Society. Loew takes care to explain at great length the
most unfavorable conditions under which, in July, 1864, he made
four forenoon excursions in a limited locality (“ Ziegelwiese ”)
near Halle; two of these excursions lasted about three hours, the
two others only one hour ; in all, he spent eight hours upon them.
During this comparatively short time he captured one hundred and
eighty-five species, which make an average of twenty-two species an
hour. But, as it appears from Loew’s account that of many species
he took more than one specimen (of Tetanocera halensis, sp. n., he
took teii), the whole booty represents an almost incredible amount
of work ! And this work was performed by a man convalescent
from a severe illness (“ eben iiberstandene schwere Krankheit”),
and debilitated by daily salt baths (“der angegriffene Zustand, in
welchen mich taglich gebrauchte Soolbader versetzten ”).

In a letter to me (23d April, 1879), Zeller invited me to join him in an excur¬
sion to the “paradise of flies,” as he called it, Bergiin in Switzerland, and added
the following good-natured allusion to Loew’s passion for bagging as many flies as
possible : “With this invitation I do not connect any arriere pensde, as Loew used
to do when he happened to invite me to accompany him on an entomological ex¬
cursion. I will not use you in a lepidopterological capacity for the purpose of
helping me to reach the number of one thousand , which I expect to be the total
number of the Lepidoptera occurring in that locality.”

Concerning Loew’s accuracy in recognizing species described by
other authors, — in other words, his capacity for determining Dip-
tera, — I am prevented from having any opinion (as 1 have expressed
it above, p. 104) in consequence of my want of a special knowledge
of the European fauna. Schiner, in this respect, has more than
once published remarks that deserve attention in regard to the
arbitrariness and untrustworthiness of some of Loew’s changes in
the adopted nomenclature, and especially on his reviving very
doubtful specific names introduced by older authors. One of such
articles of Schiner will be found in the Verh. zool.-bot. Gesellsch.,
Wien, 1872, p. 63 sqq., on the synonymies of some Empidae and

LOEW AS A LIPTEROLOGIST

123

Chloropidae. Whether Schiner is always right I am incompetent to
decide, but what induced me to refer to the question of recog¬
nizing descriptions is the experience I have had of Loew's method
in that matter.

For the purpose of recognizing an insect in one or more descrip¬
tions, two different methods may be used, one of which may be
called the method of comparison, and the other the method of
visualization.

The method of comparison is the ordinary one, when the specimen
to be determined is held up and compared in every detail with the
description. In using this method, one is often bewildered by dis¬
crepancies, especially when the description is long.

The method of visualization consists in examining the specimen
first, and impressing its principal features upon one’s memory, so
as to be capable of visualizing it in its absence. The next step is
to read the description (or descriptions, when there are several),
and, while doing it, to build up the described insect in one’s imagi¬
nation. Thus a mental image is produced in which the visualized
species to be determined can easily be recognized, even in the
absence of the specimen. After having thus selected a description
apparently answering the specimen to be determined, the descrip¬
tion is read for a second time with the specimen in hand ; and this
second reading enables one to decide whether the discrepancies
are important or not, and, in the latter case, to accept the
identification.

The method of visualization is quicker and surer than the other,
and, with it, I have often succeeded in deciphering Walker’s some¬
times long but unmeaning descriptions. In the following instance
the advantage of the method of visualization was unmistakably
proved. Loew had prepared a preliminary list of American Dasypo-
gonina , in which the species known to him were distributed among
his new genera. Some of Walker’s and other unrecognizable specific
descriptions were enumerated under the heading Dasypogon in the
widest sense. Loew challenged what he called my perspicacity
(“Ihren Scharfsinn”) in unravelling some of Walker’s species of
the latter group. I find my identifications (which Loew accepted)
enumerated in a letter of mine of October 9, 1874, of which I re-

• 9

130

LOEW AS A DIPTEEOLOGIST

produce the corresponding passage : “ The species of Dasypogon
which you left to my perspicacity to interpret 1 have subjected
to a critical scrutiny. Dasypogon rufescens Macq. is very probably
Diogmites discolor Loew ; Macquart has overlooked the spurs on
the front tibiae. Dasypogon falto Walk, is Cyrtopogon chrysopogon
Loew ; in Walker’s description you must read face instead of
front. Dasypogon macerinus Walk., wretchedly described, seems to
be your Anisopogon gibbus. Finally, Dasypogon lutatius Walk, is
the species which, in my last invoice, I sent you under No. 458,”
etc. This last species is introduced into my Catalogue of 1878,
p. 69, as Cyrtopogon lutatius Walk. ; the other species will be
found in their places as probable synonyms of Loew’s corre¬
sponding species.

To the same wrong method of determining Diptera may be at¬
tributed Loew’s mistakes in the interpretation of generic descrip¬
tions. The genus Metoponia Macq., an Australian Chiromyzid, he
identified with a North American Berid (compare above, p. 119) ;
the North American Tipulid Cladura O. S. he wrongly recognized
in a small European Limnophilid (compare my “ Studies on Tipu-
lidaef Yol. II, p. 206 at top) ; Anarete Hal. lie mistook for a
Cecidomyid (compare above, p. 115) ; his Chrysops gigantulus was
in reality a Silvius (compare p. 120), etc.

For a responsible entomologist it is quite indispensable to pos¬
sess this faculty of visualization, and it would be quite expedient,
I think, to examine aspirants for appointments in museums in
regard to it just as candidates for railway service are examined
for color- vision.1

In my Chapter I, “On the Beginnings of my Relations with
Loew,” etc., I have complained of my inability to come to an under¬
standing with him concerning the terminology of Diptera. When¬
ever I inquired about his views on the terminology of the venation, or
of thesclerites of the thorax, I found him unprepared and hesitating,
but profuse of promises. So, after much correspondence about
venation , he wrote me (March 4, 1868) : “ My work on venation
you shall receive immediately, but I must first make a fair

1 This account about “ the two methods of determining Diptera ” I have pub¬
lished in the Ent. Monthly Mag., London, December, 1901.

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

131

copy of it.” I never received anything of the kind, and in a
letter of December 22 of the same year there is a long, confusing
paragraph about marginal and submarginal cells, without any men¬
tion of the promised paper. Loew’s terminology in “ Monographs,”
Vol. I, p. xxiv (1862), with the intercalary veins , etc., did not
suit me at all, although he considered it as the final exposition
of his views on the subject, and, as late as 1868 (in his “ Beschrei-
bungen europaischer Dipteren,” Preface, p. xii), recommended it
to his readers for fuller information. In my second monograph on
the Limnobina (1869), I finally concluded to adopt Schiner’s view
of the fourth vein , which did good service as a working hypothesis.

In my paper ( Berl . Unt. Zeit., 1896, p. 287 ; 154, 1896), “ Notice
on the Terms Tegida, Antitegulaf etc., I have shown that Loew had
misused the term tegida. In this paper I said that in editing the
first volume of the “ Monographs,” etc., I had of course no right to
change Loew's terminology, but that I had taken the liberty, in
the footnote of page xiv, to remark : “ Some authors call them
squamae. — O. S.” I have also had a discussion with Loew about
the term arista. Loew had always used the term “ Fiihlerborste ”
(in Latin seta antennarum ), which, in Vol. I of the “ Monographs,”
translated under his supervision, was rendered by the term anten¬
nal bristle (loc. cit., p. 34, 35, and passim ). This term is mislead¬
ing, because it suggests the idea that this organ has something in
common with a real bristle , whereas it must be considered as a part
of the antenna. In the following volumes of the “ Monographs,”
translated under my supervision, I adopted therefore the term
arista , that had been used in England. Loew objected to it:
“ Arista has much against it ” (“ Arista hat manches gegen sich,”
letter of April 14,1863) ; nevertheless, this time I persisted. This
unpreparedness of Loew in matters of terminology became still
more apparent when the Smithsonian Institution asked him to
draw up a General Introduction to Diptera, to be placed at the
head of the first volume of the “ Monographs.” This very natural
request caused Loew the greatest perplexity ; he accomplished the
task, but with “ great effort,” and confessed at the same time that
he had “ learned much during this work.” (Compare my account
in Chapter VII, p. 47.)

132

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

Of the excessive and sometimes confusing prolixity of some of
Loew's descriptions of species, and of his style of writing in gen¬
eral, I have spoken before, in Chapter I, p. 32.

About Loew’s unpardonable and studied disregard of his con¬
temporaries in dipterology, a disregard which proved very detri¬
mental to science, I have introduced detailed accounts in the
present “ Record.” A list of references to such accounts will
he found in my “ Introduction ” (p. 19). At the same time I have
observed that “ the only secret motive of this idiosyncrasy that I
can surmise is the consciousness of Loew that Nature had formed
him for something better than describing Diptera.” And indeed it
often occurred to me to apply to Loew the well-known exclamation
of Dr. Johnson to Hannah More: “ Milton, Madam, was a genius
that would cut a Colossus from a rock, but could not carve beads
out of cherry-stones.” A satisfactory explanation, psychological, or
perhaps pathological, of this idiosyncrasy of Loew I do not pretend
to attempt, but I shall always maintain (“ Introduction,” p. 21)
“ that, while condemning his injustice in the strongest terms, I do
not mean to impugn his personal character as a man of truth and
honor.” There have been other great men who have shown similar
anomalies of character. Galileo, one of the master minds in sci¬
ence, was jealous of some of his contemporaries, especially of the
great Kepler, whose discoveries and attempts at a correspondence
he treated with studied neglect (compare the biography of Galileo,
in Arago, Oeuvres, Vol. Ill, p. 261-262 ; Paris and Leipzig, 1859).

In connection with the marked disregard of Loew towards his
dipterological colleagues he was reproached, and, I think, with good
reason, with not having been “an inspiring teacher,” and not hav¬
ing had followers, like Schiner. His supercilious and repellent
manner, which I experienced myself at the outset (compare above,
p. 29), may have disheartened the zeal of many novices, and even
discouraged prominent talents. Who knows but that Zeller may
have been influenced by Loew when, after a brilliant and promising
debut , he suddenly abandoned dipterology? It belonged to a man
like Zetterstedt, strong in his conviction of doing useful work, to
continue it in his own way for fifteen years with commendable com¬
posure, in spite of Loew’s persistent disdain (compare my Chap-

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

133

ter XVIII on Zetterstedt). Such behavior on the part of Loew
is the more strange as it stands in complete contrast to his conduct
as a school teacher, always “suggestive and inspiring ... he
acquired in a rare degree the affection of his scholars ” ; such are
the words of his biographer, Dr. Krause, who was one of them !
(Compare above, Chapter XV, p. 101.)

The peculiar circumstances connected with the publication of Loew’s new series
of descriptive work, entitled “ Beschreibungen europaischer Dipteren,” deserve a
separate notice. Three volumes of this series have been published (in 1869, 1871,
and 1873). In 1877, Loew wrote me that, among his unpublished manuscripts,
there was a fourth volume almost finished (“ welcher fast vollendet daliegt,” see
above, p. 97). Like the rest of these manuscripts, this volume has not been
printed.

The first of the volumes of the “ Beschreibungen ” has two titlepages. On the
first we. read : “ Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europaischen zwei-
fliigeligen Insecten, von Johann Wilhelm Meigen. — Achter Theil, oder zweiter
Supplementband. Bearbeitet von Hermann Loew. — Halle, 1869.” The second
titlepage bears the inscription : “ Beschreibungen europaischer Dipteren, von H.
Loew. Erster Band. Halle, 1869.”

The same arrangement is found, mutatis mutandis , in the second and in the third
volumes: the second has, on the first titlepage: “ Neunter Theil, oder dritter
Supplementband”; and on the second titlepage: “ Zweiter Band.” The third
volume has, on the first titlepage : “ Zehnter Theil, oder vierter Supplementband ” ;
and on the second titlepage : “ Dritter Band.”

As the first titlepage of the first volume bears the inscription “ Zweiter Supple¬
mentband,” and the second titlepage, which has for title “ Beschreibungen europa¬
ischer Dipteren,” is marked “ Erster Band,” it is evident that an intercalary
“ Erster Supplementband” was planned, hut not published. About this intended
intercalary work, Loew’s Preface of Vol. I of the “ Beschreibungen europaischer
Dipteren” (1869) contains an explanation. After relating at great length how,
since Meigen, the systematic distribution of the Diptera has undergone many
changes, and how a large number of new genera have been described, Loew goes
on: “This consideration seems to make it advisable, while undertaking a new
working up of the European Diptera, to separate the systematic department
(which is liable to become soon antiquated) from the descriptions of new species,
which remain permanently indispensable. I intend therefore to publish on the
System of European Diptera a separate work, illustrated by numerous figures,
and to collect the descriptions of the species in a second work, of which the
present publication is the first volume.

“ The first work, for which rather voluminous preparatory manuscripts are
ready (‘zu welchem ziemlich umfangreiche Vorarbeiten fertig sind’), will contain
in its Introduction the necessary information about the terminology, and the dis¬
tribution of Diptera into families, and will also provide, in separate fascicles for
each family, the subdivision of the families into genera. I shall not bind my¬
self to any definite succession of the families, but shall publish those first the

134

LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

systematic distribution of which is the clearest. I can hardly hope to complete
the working up of all the families ; but, should I be compelled to desist, it will
be easy for my successor to continue the work, and to bring it to {(.conclusion. I
shall be very glad to entrust single families, for the purpose of working them up,
to dipterologists who may have chosen them for a specialty. And it also will
give me great pleasure if some of the tried senior workers of the present genera¬
tion, or others, of the junior class, of whom there is no lack at present, would
consent to take a share in a work, the successful consummation of which tran¬
scends the power of one single man,” etc.

In this pompous and diffuse style the Preface goes on for fourteen pages. It
would be useless to conjecture whether Loew was sincere in anticipating the reali¬
zation of this ideal programme for future dipterology, of which he would have
been the centre. The hard fact remains that, within the next five years he .pub¬
lished (as I have shown above) three volumes of purely descriptive work , and had
prepared materials for a fourth volume. He would have gone on with the publi¬
cation of these volumes if, in 1873 (the date of the last volume), he had not sud¬
denly gone into politics, and had not since then, until his death in 1879, relegated
dipterology into the background. That other work, promised with such insistence
in the high-sounding Preface, never appeared, and an explanation of this delay
was never given, nor even alluded to in the Prefaces of the second and third vol¬
umes. The double title of the first volume was nevertheless reproduced in the
second and in the third, as the only reminder of the given promise !

I have introduced this digression as indispensable to my “ Characterization of
Loew,” etc. Without it, many a dipterologist would perhaps have made use of
the “ Beschreibungen ” before having read its Preface, and therefore without
understanding the origin and the meaning of the double title of this publication.

Loew possessed a superabundance of working power and of te¬
nacity at work. It is for the purpose of exemplifying these quali¬
ties that I have reproduced m facsimile his tour de force in
calligraphy (in Chapter I), which represents, I may say, an almost
superhuman effort. In dipterology, after trying different direc¬
tions for his studies, he settled upon the descriptive department as
the most suitable for his insatiable craving for work. If he had
lived ten years longer, he would probably have continued publish¬
ing “ Centuries ” and volumes of “ Beschreibungen europaischer
Dipteren ” as the most expedient form of publication for his talent.
It is strange, nevertheless, that he never came openly to acknowl¬
edge this vocation, but always attempted to explain it away by
apologies and equivocations of every kind.

Heretofore I have examined Loew’s work objectively, from the
purely critical point of view, and have shown in what his true
merit consists. But I feel bound, before concluding my “ Charac-

NOTICE OF FERDINAND KOWARZ

135

terization,” also to place on record his moral merit by pointing out
the very unfavorable and often most discouraging conditions under
which his work was carried on. In the Introduction to my “ Ver-
zeichniss der entomologischen Schriften von Hermann Low” (104,
1884) I have enumerated some of these obstacles: his life in small
towns, far from museums and libraries ; the difficulty in finding
publishers for his writings; the illiberality of museums in not lend¬
ing him materials for work, etc. Dr. Krause’s “ Obituary ” of Loew
(the translation of which is reproduced in my Chapter XV) men¬
tions still other difficulties : Loew’s varied and sometimes burden¬
some professional duties, his very limited financial resources, and,
in many cases, the state of his health. In my Chapters XI V and
XV are described the tragic circumstances of the decline of Loew’s
faculties, of his last illness, and of his death, all of which entitle
him to a place, not only among the heroes, but also among the
martyrs of science 1

Not long before Loew’s death, his collection of Diptera was purchased by the
Royal Zoological Museum in Berlin for six thousand marks (about fifteen hun¬
dred dollars). Dr. Stein, one of the assistants of the Museum, was entrusted with
the care of the collection. According to his estimate it contained about seventy-
five hundred species, represented by sixty thousand specimens. A discussion arose
whether to keep the collection apart, at least for an indefinite number of years, or
to have it incorporated immediately within the general dipterological collection of
the Museum. The best entomological authorities were of the opinion to keep the
collection apart. Consulted by Dr. Stein, I gave my opinion in that same sense,
in a letter containing an elaborate exposition of my reasons. The Director of the
Museum at that time, Dr. Peters, was of a contrary opinion, which provoked a
protest from many entomologists in Germany. An allusion to this episode in
the Deutsche Entomolorjische Zeitsclirift (1879, p. 419, footnote) was followed by
the resignation of Dr. Peters as a member of the Society of which the “ Zeitsclirift ”
was the organ. The story of this “storm in a teacup” will be found in several
articles of the Deutsche Entomoloijische Zeitsclirift (for instance, 1879, p. 23 :
“Loew’s Fliegensammlung ” ; 1880, in the Proceedings, p. 1-4).

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XVI

Notice of the Dipterologist, Ferdinand Kowarz

F e r d i n a n d Iv o w a r z, as a dipterologist, has not received, it
seems to me, the appreciation due to him. Ilis publications are
much less voluminous than those of Loew, and his rule, during his

136

NOTICE OF FERDINAND KOWAEZ

lifetime, was less conspicuous. Nevertheless, liis merit is very
great and his name should be inseparable from that of Loew. For
this reason I place this unpretending notice about him next to my
“ Characterization of Loew as a Dipterologist.”

Ferdinand Ivowarz was born in Plan (Bohemia), February,
1838, and followed the career of an employe in the Imperial Aus¬
trian Telegraph Department. My high appreciation of his publi¬
cations induced me to pay him a visit in May, 1878, at Asch, a
little town in the northwest corner of Bohemia, where he was
“ Kaiserlich-Koniglicher Telegraphen-Beamte ” (Telegraph Offi¬
cial). I noticed the admirable order which prevailed in his
collection of European Diptera, in which all the families were
worked up with the greatest care. When visiting Vienna soon
afterwards, I took occasion to call the attention of' Kowarz’s
chief, Brunner von Wattenwyl, to this remarkable subordinate of
his, and to his merit as a dipterologist. Brunner, himself a dis¬
tinguished entomologist, and well known for his publications on
Orthoptera , thanked me for this communication, and soon after¬
wards promoted Ivowarz to a much more important post, as head
of the Post and Telegraph Office (“ K. K. Postverwalter ”) in the
well-known watering-place Franzensbad in Bohemia, which posi¬
tion Ivowarz occupied for more than twenty years, until his
retirement with a pension. This promotion was an advantage
for the material welfare^ of Ivowarz (who was married and had
children), although the duties connected with his new post left
him less time for his entomological occupations.

Loew was in constant correspondence with Ivowarz, and even
had paid him a visit at Asch, but did not seem to appreciate him
as he deserved, and spoke of him in a patronizing tone of superi¬
ority. Kowarz’s first publication ( Verb, zool.-bot. Gesellsch ., Wien,
18G7), “ Beschreibung sechs neuer I)ipteren-Arten ” (six pages
with woodcuts), is that of a trained dipterologist. 1 1 is successive
papers on Loew’s favorite family Dolichopodidae (“ Dipterologische
Notizen,” 1868; Chrysotus , 1874; Medeterus , 1877; Aryyra und
Leucostola , 1878; the Dolichopodidae in Lis “ Beitrage zu einem
Verzeichnisse der Dipteren Bolimens,” 1884; Sympycnus , 1889)
show a treatment more careful than that of Loew, and afford an

Dr Hermann Loew.

PHILIPP C. ZELLER AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

137

abundance of illustrations on plates, or in single figures, which
are wanting in most of Loew’s papers on the same subject. As a
specimen, I would recommend for study the article on the difficult
genus Chrysotus (Verb, zool.-hot. Gesellsch., Wien, 1874) with its
admirable plate of details.

A due tribute to Kowarz was rendered to him recently by Dr.
Joh. Schnabl, in Warsaw ( apropos of Anthomyiae ), in the words:
“ Der ausgezeichnete F orscher in der Dipterologie, F. Kowarz,
gehort zu den ersten, welche liier den Weg offneten ” ( Wiener Ent.
Zeit ., 1902, p. 135).

I have not the slightest doubt that future workers will more and
more appreciate Kowarz, will admire the independence of his re¬
searches (under his difficult and straitened surroundings), and will
consider him among the foremost dipterologists of the latter half
of the nineteenth century.

Unfortunately, Kowarz, some time before his retirement, was
compelled by his circumstances to part with his library and with
his collection (the latter was purchased by Mr. G. H. Verrall, of
Newmarket, England). Under these conditions it will be still
more difficult for him to continue his work on Diptera.

XVII PHILIPP C. ZELLER AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

Philipp Christoph Zeller was born on April 9, 1808,
in Steinheim, on the Murr (Wurtemberg), and died on March 27,
1883, in Griinhof, near Stettin. A short obituary notice with a
portrait will be found in the Stett. Ent. Zeit., 1883, p. 406; a
longer, very sympathetic account of his life and distinguished
services, as one of the greatest of lepidopte lists, was published in
the same periodical by the competent hand of the lepidopterist
Frey in Zurich (Stett. Ent. Zeit., 1883, p. 413-416). A veiy
characteristic postscript is added to it by Dr. C. A. Dohrn,
President of the Entomological Society in Stettin.

For a long time I had been meditating a paper on “Zeller as a
Dipterologist,” and now I avail myself of the opportunity for
inserting a notice about him here.

133

PHILIPP C. ZELLER AS A DirTEROLOGIST

In Zeller, the lepidopterist, the ideal of a perfect dipterologist was
lost! He was, after Rob.-Desvoidy, one of the few who put in
practice the notion that dipterology is the science, not of pinned
Diptera only, but also of Diptera in life. His observations of the
motions of Diptera during different functions of their life are, in
many cases, more complete than those of any other dipterologist,
and deserve more study and imitation than they have received.

The principal work of Zeller on Diptera is contained in two
successive papers published in Oken's Isis of 1840 and 1842.
The first paper is entitled, “ Beitrag zur Ivenntniss der Dipteren
aus den Familien der Bombylier, Anthracier, u. Asiliden (Isis,
1840, p. 10-77, with a plate containing seventy-two figures). The
second paper, “ Dipterologische Beitriige ” (Isis, 1842, p. 807-
847), contains twenty separate articles on different dipterological
subjects, among them an elaborate monographical essay on European
Tabanidae (p. 812-825). In the short introductory paragraph of
this second article Zeller promises a third “ Beitrag,” which, how¬
ever, never appeared. The explanation of the plate, which refers
to both papers, is placed at the end of the second.1

The very remarkable publications of Zeller on Diptera in the
years 1840 and 1842, buried as they are in the ponderous volumes
of Oken’s Isis of sixty years ago, have been very little con¬
sulted and appreciated by dipterologists. And yet any one who
will take the trouble to study these pages will acknowledge that
they contain perhaps the most delightful reading on Diptera in
existence. The scope was a small one, the local fauna of a por¬
tion of Silesia, but Zeller has understood how to introduce into
his work a real wealth of valuable observations of Diptera in

1 Articles of minor importance on Diptera by Zeller will be found quoted in Hagen’s
“ Bibliotheca,” under Zeller, Nos. 8, 10, 16, 17, 36; they all appeared in the Stett.
Ent. Zeit. In the same periodical, in 1872, there is a “ List of Diptera from Bergiin in
Switzerland,” by Zeller. Zeller told me that of his first paper in Isis, 1840, there
were no separate copies in existence. He had none himself when I saw him, because
he had made a present of his own copy to Zetterstedt. 1 had the good fortune to dis¬
cover another separate copy which Oken, the editor of Isis, had sent to Kondani. I
bought it at Hoepli’s in Milan, together with some other books from Eondani’s library.
It bears the inscription (in pencil) : “ A1 Ill. Camillo Kondani a Parma per l’Editore
Prof. Oken.” Of the second of Zeller’s papers in Isis there are some rare separate
copies scattered in libraries.

PHILIPP C. ZELLER AS A BIPTEROLOGIST

139

life, and of facts about geographical distribution derived from a
large personal experience in different parts of Europe. The de¬
scriptive part of the work is treated with rare detail and accuracy ;
notices on the varieties of the species are sometimes almost too
redundant (for instance, in the Tabanidae). Among the compara¬
tively small number of genera and species that are treated of,
many new characters and subdivisions are introduced, often with
singular perspicacity. But the most attractive and novel depart¬
ment of the work is biological, consisting of accounts of the
habits and of the demeanor of flies. To illustrate Zeller's man¬
ner, I shall reproduce a few instances. About Bombylius he
says, p. 14 : —

“ The mode of flight of the true Bombyliidae is not unlike that of Syrphns.
They hover for some time in the same place, jerk off suddenly, and then
gradually sink, and thus approach the flowers they intend to suck. In the
meantime they hold their hind legs horizontally, diverging; the front and
middle pair almost hanging, and kept close together; the latter are often
rubbed against each other, just as house-flies rub their front legs when
cleaning themselves with them. The proboscis is horizontally stretched
out. When near a flower, they generally touch it with the tips of their
front legs, without, however, resting upon it ; the wings vibrate without
interruption, and support the body evidently more than the legs. The pro¬
boscis is inserted in the flower, whenever it is possible, vertically. For the
night’s rest they alight upon blades of grass or on flowers. When an enemy
is approaching, they vibrate their wings, without being able to fly. Later
in the evening, when the air is cooler, they become incapable even of this
sign of life. The sound emitted by them during flight is, in some species,
very loud, and resembles the piping of Culex, except that it is louder. The
sound of Bombylius minimus is very low, and yet audible, when the ear is
brought near it.”

Not content with such generalities, Zeller notices the peculiari¬
ties of behavior of almost every species : Bombylius minimus : “ Flies
near Berlin, Frankfort (on the Oder), and Glogau in pine forests,
about open, sandy places in July. Ilis favorite flower is Thymus
serpillum. He ofteu alights on the sand. I have already spoken
of his low piping tune.” Similar details about Bombylius minor ,
posticus, concolor , etc., eight species in all.

Concerning Anthrax, he says (p. 25) : —

140

PHILIPP C. ZELLER AS A DIPTEKOLOGIST

“ These flies are very sober and but little subject to thirst, for they hardly
ever visit flowers, even on hot days. It is during the present season that I
have, for the first time, observed them to do so. Formerly, I had seen
them sometimes alighting on flowers ; but they always flew off without
sucking. The flowers of Sedum acre (stone-crop) have a great attraction for
them; round a spot covered with Sedum in blossom, on July G, 1839, 1 have
seen at the same time Anthrax morio, afra, maura, varia , and mucida, each
represented by several specimens, and sucking the nectar, and this sight at
once put an end to the doubts I had entertained about Meigen’s assertion.1
Still later (July 12) I found A. cingulata on the flowers of Atliamanta oreo-
selinum. Before that, I had but once observed an A. morio sucking the
dew accumulated in the hollow of a leaf. . . . Notwithstanding the large
wings and their strong vibration, I have never heard them hum. A large
A. cingulata I believe to have heard producing a slight sound.”

In regard to the Asilidae, lie says (p. 34) : —

“ So far as I know, nobody has as yet observed an analogy between them and
the Libellulae, especially Libellula ( Agrion ) purlla. This analogy, neverthe¬
less, exists, and was first noticed by me in a species in which it is almost re¬
duced to a minimum, Asilus punctipennis. It is much more apparent in the
slender species of Dioctria and Leptogaster. The opportunities for compar¬
ing them are frequent, because they very often occur together in the same
localities. As resting-places they select protruding ends of branches, sticks
of wood, or blades of grass, from the end of which they have a good survey,
and can easily start for flight. Between bushes both make the same adroit
evolutions, and keep the legs ready for grasping. The legs are provided
with spines of different size which enable them to have a good hold of their
prey. The hind femora are longer than the front and middle ones. The
prey being secured, the robber occupies the nearest resting-place and de¬
vours or sucks his booty with so much greed that, forgetful of his usual
caution, he is easily caught.”

It would be only justice to Zeller to have his hundred pages re¬
printed and made more accessible to the general public. Zeller had
an excellent influence upon Loew, with whom he spent eight years
as Professor in the Gymnasium in Meseritz (1860-1868), and to
whom he generously communicated the admirably preserved col¬
lections of Diptera which he used to bring home from his walks

1 Meigen, III, p. 142, says: “ Sie fiiegen aus bei heissem Sonnenscheine und besau-
gen die Blumen.”

PHILIPP C. ZELLER AS A DIPTEROLOGIST

141

and journeys (for instance, in 1843, from Sicily). Loew often re¬
ferred to him in his letters to me. In one of them (December 16, 1860)
he says : “ Zeller’s companionship last autumn has renewed my in¬
terest in practical entomology ; I brought home all kinds of stuff,
which has at once produced some remarkable specimens. Nothing
is more remunerative than to heap up in a cold room decayed wood,
dry stems of plants, heads of Composites. Towards the spring,
without any further trouble, the walls and windows of the room
are covered with a multitude of flies, some of which are hardly ever
found in the open air.” In another letter (May 25, 1861) Loew
says : “ A great comfort for me in the bad weather and other
miseries we are enduring at present is the intercourse with Zeller,
who is far superior to me in entomological knowledge and from
whom I learn a great deal. lie is an able and sympathetic being,”
etc. Whether Loew was always just towards Zeller is another
question. Zeller (1840) had been the predecessor of Loew in
monographing the German Tabanidae , and his work, although
limited to Silesia as to area, is excellent. Loew in his publication
on the same subject (in 1858) treats Zeller’s paper with his usual
superciliousness ; he adopts two of his new species of Tabanus, but
takes no other notice of his work, except in the following off-hand
passage: “ Zeller, in O ken’s Isis, 1842, has proposed the generic
separation of the species of Tabanus with strongly pubescent eyes,
under the name of Therioplectes ; the acceptance of this proposition
would indeed render the determination of the species easier, if the
eyes of the glabrous-eyed species are absolutely glabrous, and not
merely provided with a more or less sparse pubescence.” Now I
have shown (in my “Prodromus of the Tabanidae of the United
States,” Part I, 1875, p. 425; 43, 1875) that, with a slight modifica¬
tion of the definition of Therioplectes, it becomes an excellent gen¬
eric concept, and especially acceptable in such a large genus as
Tabanus.

In my paper, “ Bibliographical and, in part, psychological In¬
quiry on the two Editions of the earliest Publication of H. Loew”
(. Berl . JEnt. Ze.it., 1896, p. 279-284; 153, 1896), I have shown that
the publication of the second edition (which appeared in Isis,
1840) was evidently prompted by no other motive than the emula-

142

NOTICE OF JOHANN WILHELM ZETTERSTEDT

tion of Loew, stimulated by the appearance of Zeller’s excellent
paper on Diptera in an earlier number of the same volume of
Isis.

XVIII NOTICE OF JOHANN WILHELM ZETTERSTEDT (1785-1874)

Among the services rendered by Zeller to science, I must men¬
tion his relations with Zetterstedt. He made himself very
useful to him by his communications, and Zetterstedt showed him¬
self very grateful. The first volume (of the fourteen of the
“ Diptera Scandinaviae ”) opens with the following dedication : —

Zellero, inter Lepidopterologos et Dipterologos
Europae magni, spectati et cari nominis viro.

These words are printed in the middle of the page, in large
type ; and at the very bottom of the page, in small type, is added :
O p e r i s auctor.

In the Preface, p. xi, there is the following passage : “ Insecta
numerosa, quae Dr. Zeller, acutissimus et egregius Silesiae Lepi-
dopterologus pariter ac Dipterologus liberalitate admiranda quotan-
nis e Glogavia mihi largitus est, eo majoris pretii et acceptiora
habeantur, quo non solum typica sunt descriptionis clar. Auctoris,
verum etiam in individuis optime conservatis data et observationi-
bus plenis ac confidentibus allegata fuerunt.”

Observe the words in individuis optime conservatis. The
habit of handling Microlepidoptera had accustomed Zeller to the
most careful treatment of specimens. The “ setting up ” of his
Diptera is perfect. At the same time he was a wonderfully active
collector and used to bring home numberless specimens. In this
respect he may be compared to the Swiss Jacob Boll and the
American Morrison ; but these were professional collectors.

Loew seems to have had no relations whatever with Zetterstedt.
In his Vol. XII (1885), Zetterstedt gives a list of thirty -eight
entomologists who had corresponded and exchanged specimens
with him. Loew is not among them. Volume after volume of
“ Diptera Scandinaviae ” were dedicated to entomological celebrities :
Wahlberg, Stager, Boheman, Dahlbom, Stenhammar, Bonsdorff,
Macquart (1852), and it is only in the last volume (Vol.

NOTICE OF JOHANN WILHELM ZETTERSTEDT

143

XIV, 1860) that Zettersteclt, at the age of seventy-five, as if in
forgiveness of the past, placed the dedication : “ Viro amplissimo,
Doctori H. Loew, Professori et Directori in Meseritz, Posnaniae,
Plur. Societ. Litterar. Membro, Dipterologo nostri aevi celeber-
rimo, hunc sui operis tomum dicavit.” In 1868, on the occasion
of receiving Schiner’s “Novara ” work from the author, Zetterstedt
sent him his photograph with the inscription : “ J. W. Zetterstedt,
natus Maji 1785 Lund, — die 25 Maji 1868 grata et arnica mente
salutat celeberrimum et nostri aevi Dipterologum facile principem
Dom. Doctorem J. Rud. Schiner.” Schiner was delighted with
this compliment as testified by him in his letter to me July 30,
1868.

An excellent article containing an impartial appreciation, and at
the same time a criticism of Zetterstedt’ s “ Diptera Scandinaviae ”
was published by Haliday ( Natural History Review , July, 1855,
p. 43-61). He says (p. 53) : “ The system of the ‘ Diptera Scan¬
dinaviae ’ is avowedly an artificial one ; but viewed simply as such,
it does not seem to fulfil its end well enough to compensate for
the disregard of natural affinities. Zetterstedt, in grateful deference
to the authority of his illustrious master in entomology [Fallen],
retained in a great measure the arrangement and the nomenclature
of Fallen’s older System, although his unbiased judgment might
have been better satisfied with the more recent Systems of Meigen
or Mac quart.”

Zetterstedt, in his Preface (Vol. I, p. viii), has distinctly ex¬
plained that he only aimed at an artificial arrangement, a fact
which has been often overlooked by those who have made use
of his work. I have especially insisted on this point in an article
in the Berl. Hnt. Zeit ., 1897, (p. 151, at bottom). Zetterstedt’s
defects notwithstanding, his life-work is a great one ; as Haliday
says (Joe. cit., p. 52): “His great work, a monument of untiring
industry, erudition, and acute discrimination, is comprised in
eleven 8vo volumes [this was written in 1855 ; the number
increased to fourteen in 1860. — Osten Sacken] which average
above 400 pages each ; and the publication, commenced at the
author’s own expense, and afterwards worthily sustained by
the public purse, has extended over a period of ten years.” [In

144

CAMILLO RONDANI AND HIS RELATIONS WITH LOEW

all, from Yol. I, 1842, to Vol. XIY, 1860, eighteen years had
elapsed. The fourteen volumes contain 6609 pages, which gives
an average of 472 pages per volume. — Osten Sacken.]

XIX CAMILLO RONDANI AND HIS RELATIONS WITH LOEW

C ami llo Rfindani1 was a descendant of a very old, noble
family of Parma, which could boast of having produced men of
distinction as early as the twelfth century. Among his ancestors
was a painter of some renown, Francesco Maria Rondani (1490-
1548). (“ La noblesse est une dignite due ala prdsomption que

nous ferons bien, parceque nos peres ont bien fait.” Joubert,
Pensdes, XVI, 54.)

I paid a visit to Rondani in Parma in the middle of May, 1873.
He made a very favorable impression upon me, and struck me at
once as being a perfect gentleman, and an experienced entomologist.
Rondani was a contemporary of Loew in so far as he was born in
1808, Loew in 1807 ; both died in the same year, 1879. An active
intercourse between them by letters, or by exchange of specimens
(like that between Zeller and Zetterstedt), would have been equally
useful to science in general, and to the studies of both in particu¬
lar. The beginning of such an intercourse did indeed take place,
but in the most unsatisfactory manner, and I am going to show
that the fault was not on the side of Rondani.

Rondani's scientific work was not confined to systematic and
descriptive entomology alone ; he took a great interest in economic
entomology , and acquired a measure of popularity by his numerous
publications on noxious insects, and by his constant warfare against
ignorance and superstition. (“His publications in this department
are not only distinguished by the merit of learning, but also by
their practical utility, and by the courage he showed in sustaining
his own opinion against that which was current.” — M. Lessona,
“ Camillo Rondani.”)

The general esteem in which Rondani was held in Italy was mani -

1 I am spelling here Rdndani with an accent on the first syllable, because he com¬
plained to me that many people pronounced his name wrongly, Rondani.

CAMILLO RONDANI AND HIS RELATIONS WITH LOEW

145

festecl after bis death (September, 1879). A subscription was raised
for the purpose of erecting a memorial in the shape of a marble
bust, which was placed within the building of the University,
and inaugurated in May, 1881, in presence of the Civic Authorities,
of the Professors of the principal educational institutions in
Parma, and of a large concourse of the public, including ladies
(“ la severa cerimonia era allietata dalla presenza di molte belje ed
eleganti signore,” said a local paper). A pamphlet was published:
Camillo Rondani, Commemorazione, Parma, 1881 ; forty pages
8vo, with a plate, representing the bust. Two other biographical
notices appeared in the same year, 1881, by Professor Michele
Lessona, in Turin, and by Dr. A. del Prato in Parma. I reproduce
these details, because it is not often that a dipterologist has been
thus honored. It offers a striking contrast to the apparent indif¬
ference with which the news of Loew’s, Schiner’s, and other dipter-
ologists’ deaths have been received by the general public.

My acquaintance with Rondani’s works is not very thorough,
because I have never been engaged in the special study of European
Diptera, and it would have been unjust to judge Rondani merely
by his work on non-European faunas. But, from a general survey
of his works, I obtained the impression that he had an excellent
eye for affinities, as well as for the discovery of leading characters,
and that, in this respect, his natural ability was decidedly superior
to that of Loew.

In preparing my papers on “ Chaetotaxy ” (1881 and 1884) I had
used the term macrochaetae without inquiring about its origin and
its first appearance in literature. It was only several years later
that I happened to look into one of Rondani’s earlier publications
(in the Nuov. Ann. Sci. Nat., Bologna, 18^5) ; “ Descrizioni di due
generi nuovi di insetti Ditteri.” It treats of Tachinidae, and
shows that Rondani had immediately become aware of the impor¬
tance of their characteristic bristles, as affording distinctive char¬
acters which had not been used before (“ caratteri distinctivi i quali
non erano prima considerati ”). At the same time, he attempted
to introduce a more precise nomenclature of them (“ ho creduto
necessario di modificare alcune espressioni poco precise che si veg-
gono usate dai ditterologia ”). He begins by pointing out the

10

146

CAMILLO RONDANI AND IIIS RELATIONS WITH LOEW

importance of some large, characteristic bristles, which he calls
macrochaetae , and adds : “ A word which may be translated hy the
other word crassisetae , and thus the ordinary word setae will re¬
main for bristles which are distinctly smaller (‘piu esili’), and pili
for those that are the most delicate (‘die sono sottilissime

Rondani then proceeds as follows : —

“ Although the macrochaetae and other bristles, inserted on the head of
different families of Diptera, have been used by dipterological writers as
distinctive characters, it was done in a rather confused and not uniform
manner, so that it was impossible to understand with certainty, either the
exact place of their insertion, or their relative position, or their number or
other peculiarities, and hence, in consequence of that very uncertainty,
these characters have had but little value. The face of certain species
was called ciligera, or set is marginata, or vibrissata ; but these expressions
did not indicate whether the face was provided with bristles botli on the
cheeks and on the edge of the facial groove, or either on the one or the
other; nor did these expressions convey the notion whether the whole
cheek or the facial groove was furnished with bristles, whether the latter
were numerous or only few, whether they were independent of the frontal
bristles or a mere continuation of them. Considering these uncertainties,
it seemed to me important to put an end to them in future, and to correct
this inconvenience by distinguishing the macrochaetae of the head accord¬
ing to the place of their insertion, after which it would be much easier to
describe their other peculiarities.”

Rondani then proceeds to establish the terminology of the macro¬
chaetae of the head, and distinguishes them as frontales, foveales,
f addles , and or ales. In defining these terms, he further develops
this terminology, and distinguishes among the frontales the verti¬
cals^ oculares , ocellares, and occipitales (and so on, for the rest).
Then he passes to the abdomen and distinguishes the macrochaetae
as superae and laterales , marginales , and intermediae. He adds
some remarks concerning a certain caution necessary in the making
use of these characters.

It must be borne in mind that the paper of Rondani containing
these suggestions had been published in 1845, and that it was two
years later, in 1847, that Loew began the publication of his life-
work as one may say, on Asilidae, in which he did not make any
use of chaetotactic characters, as he should have done, and thus

CAMILLO RONDANI AND HIS RELATIONS WITH LOEW

147

left “ a mine of characters ” untouched (as I have expressed in my
paper on “ Chaetotaxy,” in the Trans. Ent. Sac., London, 1884,
p. 515; 102, 1884).

Rob.-Desvoidy had carefully defined and named the parts
of the head, but his terminology of the bristles was vague (cilia
frontalia for the bristles of the upper part of the head ; cilia
apicalia for the bristles of the abdomen). He used these terms
in his last work (1863) ; in the “ Myodaires ” (1830) the description
of the bristles is still more uncertain. Compare for instance the
description of the genus Athrycia in the “ Myodaires ” (p. Ill) with
that of the same genus in the “Hist. Nat.,” etc., Vol. I, p. 829
(1863).

I do not find that the term macrochaetae has been used by
Macquart, Loew, Haliday, or Walker, and, so far as I can find
out, it was Schiner, in his “ Fauna,” who popularized it for the first
time. But it is nevertheless strange that, although llondani made
the first step towards a systematic Chaetotaxy, lie did not persist
in this undertaking, which would have been of much use to him in
his later publications.

Apart from Chaetotaxy; Rob.-Desvoidy and Rondani had, in gen¬
eral, given more attention to the preliminary work indispensable
for the proper classification and description of Diptera than Loew.
It is unnecessary for me to insist upon this again, after the account
I have given, in my “ Chapters ” concerning Loew, of the striking
contrast between the magniloquent Preface of Loew’s second
edition of his “ Posener Dipteren ” (1840) and his complete failure
in realizing the expectations raised by it; or of Loew’s terror,
when he was requested by the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a
General Introduction on Diptera, to precede the intended series of
“ Monographs ” (compare above in my Chapter VII : Remarks . . .
concerning Loew’s first volume of the Monographs of North Amer¬
ican Diptera).

Among a lot of pamphlets (derived from Loew’s library) which
I purchased at a bookseller’s in Leipzig, I found three manuscript
letters of Rondani to Loew. The earliest of them is dated Feb¬
ruary 15, 1846, and begins with the words : “ Literas tuas carissi-
mas die 25 Januarii 1845 inscriptas, initio tantuin mensis Februari

148

CAMILLO RONDANI AND HIS RELATIONS WITH LOEW

184G accepi,” etc.1 Rondani thanks for the communication of one
of Loew’s papers (it was “ Dipterologische Beitrage,” Yol. I, 1845,
as results from the context), and complains of the difficulty he has
in understanding his letter written in German: “Utinam tamen
observationes tuas quae niagni pretii sunt mihi, sermone pro me
scriberes faciliore, nam germanicum mihi sat est peregrin um.
Rondani, having been originally educated for the clerical profes¬
sion, could write Latin fluently, and in that Loew probably was
not able to follow him. Nevertheless I think that, with more
good will on his part, this obstacle could have been overcome.
In this first letter, Rondani answers Loew’s observations, accepts
some of them, and rejects others ; he complains especially of Loew
having been led into error by the short notice in Isis about his
genera of Cecidomyiae ; “ Pauca in ‘ Iside ’ relata in opinionem
erroneam te duxerunt,” etc. In his second letter (March 15, 1846)
Rondani informs Loew that he sends him his publications, except¬
ing the “ Memoriae ” 1, 2, 3, and 5, of which he had no separate
copies left (compare my Catalogue of Rondani’s works) ; he re¬
places them by manuscript extracts enclosed in the same letter,
with tracings of the figures.

In response to Rondani’s communication of his Essays, Loew
published a review of them, marked No. I, in the Stett. Ent. Zeit .,
1847, p. 146-147. The magisterial and patronizing style of this
review was, in my opinion, somewhat unbecoming towards a con¬
temporary as to age, and even, I may say, an equal as to merit,
because the Loew of 1847 was by no means the same as the Loew
of a later period. In this review, Loew says (p. 146) : “ The
second paper (1840) contains a systematic subdivision of the Tipu-
laria yallicola which the author splits (‘ spaltet ’) into Lestreminae
and Cecidomyiinae , a splitting (Loew on purpose uses this con¬
temptuous expression ‘ Zersplitterung ’) in which the author will

1 The cause of this delay of more than a year is not explained, but may have been
due to the primitive conditions in which Rondani lived in Parma at that time. An
instance of these conditions is the address of his letters to Loew : Palatinat de Posnanie,
dans la Grande Polorjne, Posen. Rondani must have used a map of the eighteenth cen¬
tury, because Posen was annexed to Prussia in 1793, and before that time that part of
the country was called “La Grande Pologne ” (Grosspolen), while the .southwestern
part of Poland, with Cracow, was called “ La Petite Pologne ” ( Klein- Polen).

CAMILLO RONDANI AND HIS RELATIONS WITH LOEW

149

hardly find any followers.” And nevertheless, the same Loew,
better informed three years later (probably by Winnertz, with
whom he corresponded at that time), but without any reference to
his previous statement, said (“ Dipterologische Beitriige,” Yol. IV,
p. 12, 1850): “He (Rondani) divides the Gallicolae into two fam¬
ilies, Lestreminae and Cecidomyiinae ; although the formation of
the names cannot be justified” [why?], “it must be acknowledged
that he has correctly recognized the two principal groups of the
family .” More than that, in the “ Monographs of North American
Diptera,” Yol. I, p. 7 (1862), Loew adopted, without the slightest
acknowledgment to Rondani , exactly the same subdivision, based
upon the very characters which Rondani had discovered more than
twenty years before, and which , at that time , Loew had rejected :!
The same characters were reproduced by Winnertz, in his paper
on Lestreminae (1869).

The arbitrary substitution by Loew of the name Anaretinae (for
Lestreminae Rond.) was unfortunate. In the Stett. Rut. Zeit.,
1845, p. 395-398, Loew had described Anarete alhipennis , sp. n.
(Germany), and decided, after a long and verbose discussion, that,
on account of its venation, it should be considered as related to
the Lestreminae , etc. In this Loew was right, because his Anarete
(as was proved afterwards) was not the Anarete of Ilaliday at all,
but a Cecidomyia. Haliday’s Anarete is a Scatopse, as Curtis had
recognized it long ago (“ Guide to an arrangement of British
Insects,” 2d ed., 1837) ; Winnertz and Schiner, perhaps indepen¬
dently of Curtis, put it in the same position, where it undoubtedly
belongs (as I have shown in Berl. Ent. Zeit ., 1892, p. 451).

The concluding passage of Loew’s review (1847) is evidently
meant for an encouragement for Rondani. Loew promises him
soon to publish a critical review of several of his oivn (Loew’s)
early publications, and adds: “ It is only just to apply the same
rule to one’s self as to others ; truth must prevail above everything,
and all disguise or palliation of error should be avoided.” This
was certainly an excellent declaration of principle ; unfortunately
the promised article No. II never appeared, although, in the pre¬
vious publications of Loew, on the very subjects in which he had
exercised his criticism against Rondani (the relationships of Ceci-

150

CAMILLO RONDANI AND HIS RELATIONS WITH LOEW

domyia , Psychoda , Phlebotomus , Anarete, etc.), there are passages
which greatly need emendation, and in which Rondani’s critic be¬
trays a very superficial knowledge of the subjects in question, and
adopts very hasty conclusions (compare, for instance, the passages
in the Stett. Put. Zeit ., 1844, p. 118, and p. 121-122; also in the
“ Dipterologische Beitrage,” Vol. I, p. 10-11, 1845). These pas¬
sages, the publication of which Loew must have afterwards regretted,
made him, at a later period of his career, very prudent in the pro¬
posal of innovations in the system (compare the passage in
“Die Dipteren-Fauna Siidafrika’s,” Preface, p. v, 1860). Con¬
cerning the behavior of Loew in regard to other portions of Ron¬
dani’s work on Cecidomyiae , I prefer not to say anything, as there
are other dipterologists, more competent than I, to pass judgment
upon them.

In 1858, Loew published a severe, but this time better justified,
critique of Rondani’s “ Dipterologiae Italicae prodromus,” Vol. I
(1856), in the Perl. Put. Zeit., 1858, p. 338-840.

The first volume of the “ Prodromus ” contains dichotomic tables
of the families and genera of Italian Diptera, published in advance
of the intended work upon them. The number of genera (accord¬
ing to Loew’s statement, loc. cit., p. 338) is 587 ; among them a con¬
siderable number are new ones, the names of which are introduced
without any other description but that contained in the data of the
dichotomic tables, connected with the name of the typical, often as
yet undescribed, species. Loew was right in calling this premature
publication a failure,1 calculated to impede, rather than to advance,
the future progress of dipterology. Loew enumerates a large
number of errors, misspelling of names and misprints. In my
“Studies on Tipulidae,” Part. II, p. 230, I gave a critical review of
Rondani’s treatment of this family in the “ Prodromus.”

To judge of the contents of the other volumes of the “Prodro¬
mus ” is a task beyond my power and foreign to the subject of the
present chapter, to which I now return.

1 In making this reproach to Rondani in 1858, Loew seems to forget that, only a
few years before, in 1850, he had published a similar premature dichotomic table of
the new genera of Amber Diptera, without sufficient definitions. In my Chapter IX
I have reproduced the very weak apologies he offered for that table.

CAMILLO RONDANI AND HIS RELATIONS WITH LOEW

151

From a letter to me (Guben, March 5, 1869), I translate the fol¬
lowing passage, which proves that Loew’s correspondence with
Parma, at that time, was not very active : “ Guben, March 5, 1869.
Rondani, with whom I exchange separata from time to time,
continues his work busily in his w^ell-known manner. Lately,
he launched his ‘Review of Italian Ortalidae,' and is now occupied
with the Trypetidae , for which, according to Haliday’s communi¬
cation, he seems to have rich material. Polyergus Haliday de¬
lights me from time to time by his detailed and often instructive
letters,” etc.

When, in 1873, Loew’s monographic paper on Ortalidae appeared,
(“Monographs,” etc., \rol. Ill), I ventured to ask him why, after
reviewing in this volume the work of all the earlier authors, even
Rob.-Desvoidy’s, concerning this family, he had not included Ron¬
dani among them. Rondani’s papers on Ortalidae had appeared
in the Bull. Soc. Ent. Ital. two or three years earlier, between 1869
and 1871. Loew’s answer to me is contained in the following
passage, which I do not quite understand, and, therefore, do not
attempt to translate : —

“ Dass Rondani’s Arbeit iiber die Ortalidae in rneiner Arbeit nicbt beriick-
sicbtigt ist, bat seinen Grund lediglich darin, dass meine Arbeit lange vor deren
Erscheinen vollendet war, und auch bei der letzten Redaction derselben sich diese
noch nicbt in meiuem Besitze befand. Icb babe micb bereits in der 1868 er-
schienenen Revision der europaiscben Ortalidae auf meine jetzt erst im Druck er-
scbienene Arbeit und deren systematische Resultate, die da zum Tbeil mitgeteilt
sind, bezogen, und Rondani beziegt sicb in seiner Arbeit wieder auf die Mittei-
lungen. So ist es wobl am besten, meine Arbeit bebiilt den Charakter ibres frii-
beren Abschlusses bei, wie icb ihr denselben gelassen babe.”

Loew knew that the publication of the first part of Rondani’s
Ortalidae had taken place in March, 1869. The last part of it ap¬
peared in 1871. Loew might have easily obtained this last part if
lie had been seriously interested in its contents. Why Loew delib¬
erately ignored Rondani’s work on Ortalidae , I leave for future
specialists of this family to unravel.

In a letter of November 17 (finished November 22), 1872, ad¬
dressed to me while I was in Rome, Loew wrote : “ I envy you your
residence in Italy. If it were possible for me to have about two
months of freedom from work, I would have used them for an

152

CAMILLO RONDANI AND HIS RELATIONS WITH LOEW

excursion to Italy, in order to anticipate the advent of spring. As
there is not the slightest prospect of it, I intend, if feasible, to send
Ivowarz on a collecting tour to Italy, as the more intimate knowl¬
edge of the Italian fauna of Diptera is indispensable to me. It may
be expedient to arrange it so that this excursion should include a
visit to Parma, and procure me, in that way, as much light as pos¬
sible on Rondani’s nomenclature of the species. Could you give
me some advice about the best time for undertaking such a journey,
and some indications concerning the best localities,” etc. This great
desire for more information upon the Italian fauna stands in strange
contrast with the marked repugnance that Loew always showed
against any correspondence with Rondani. Loew wrote me this
while he was keeping me for years in suspense about the manu¬
script of the third volume of the “ Monographs.” I must have
felt rather tired of such proceedings, because I do not find in my
correspondence that I made any reply to this Italian ‘proposal.

During the spring of 1873, Loew asked me to procure him in
Italy the volumes of Rondani’s “Prodromus,” as, up to that time,
he had used a borrowed copy. I sent him the work as a present,
and received his thanks (May 9, 1873). I take note of the follow¬
ing passage : “ This work, with all its imperfections, is not without
some positive merit (‘ ist nicht ohne bestimmte Vorzuge’), which
makes it indispensable, so that I am glad to have it.” This rather
late acquisition must have offered Loew an opportunity for a more
serious study of the “ Prodromus.” I find that the very next year,
in his paper on Azelia (1874, p. 9), he pays a compliment to Rondani
on his progress between Yol. I and Vol. VI of the “ Prodromus.”
In Vol. I Rondani had united Azelia and Homalomyia under the
name of Myantlia, gen. n. In Vol. VI he gave up Myantha , and
restored the other two genera. Loew says : “ He has characterized
them by plastic characters that are better chosen than those pre¬
viously used by authors in defining the genera of Anthomyiidae, so
that his work on this family, in this instance and in others, consti¬
tutes a true progress in its classiiication. The characterization of
Azelia by Rondani is, on the whole, sufficient, although not quite ap¬
plicable to female specimens. The characters used in the definition
of the five species enumerated by him are useful (‘ brauchbar ’),

NOTES ON CHAETOTAXY

153

but scanty in number, so that some of the species cannot be inter¬
preted with absolute certainty, but only with great probability (‘ so
dass einige der Arten nicht mit absoluter Gewissheit, sondern nur
mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit gedeutet werden konnen’).” It
would be difficult to bestow praise more sparingly, and with more
caution. And yet, one feels like exclaiming : “ better late than
never.” Both Loew and Rondani died five years later, in 1879.

Rondani for a time had been in correspondence with Macquart.
Among the books from his library which I purchased from the
bookseller Hoepli, in Milan, there was a manuscript of sixteen
quarto pages in Macquart’s handwriting. It is entitled: “ Suite de
l’examen des Tachinaires envoy£s par Mr. Rondani a Mr. Macquart
en 1844.” It begins with No. 21 and ends with No. 90, each num¬
ber representing a species about the name of which Macquart gives
his opinion.

Haliday, during his residence in Lucca (Italy), must have been
very useful to Rondani. As an instance of his solicitude, I will
mention that he provided the latter with a set of his own (Hal-
iday’s) publications, with manuscript notes and corrections. Of
several papers of which Haliday had no separate copies to give
away, he supplied copies in his own handwriting. The thirty-three
pages of the article in the Entomological Magazine , 1832-1833,
p. 147-180, “Catalogue of Diptera occurring about Holy wood, in
Devonshire,” Haliday translated for Rondani into Latin. I found
this manuscript among my purchase from the bookseller Hoepli, in
Milan. It is a model of calligraphy.

Opinions and criticisms about Rondani’s work on Acalyptrata
will be found in Dr. Th. Becker’s publications in the Berl. Ent.
Zeit ., 1894, p. 81 ( Scatomyzidae ), 1895, p. 174 ( Sapromyzidae ),
ibid., p. 322 (JLonchaea') .

XX NOTES ON CHAETOTAXY, COMPLEMENTARY TO MY PRE¬
VIOUS PUBLICATIONS ON THE SAME SUBJECT

The study of Diptera, previous to the introduction of a regular
system of Chaetotaxy, may serve as a remarkable instance of the
routine (irrational old habit) which, with rare exceptions, prevails
in all human affairs.

154

NOTES ON CHAETOTAXY

At present, in questions of classification, we use cliaetotactic
characters as sure, indispensable, and easily applicable indexes
of affinities. But, before 1880, the want of appreciation of these
characters brought about hypothetic relationships established
merely upon superficial resemblances, or upon characters of but
secondary importance. The result was that groupings and arrange¬
ments were adopted which now appear to us simply preposterous.

Beginning with myself, I must acknowledge that for more than
twenty-five years, I had been studying Diptera without feeling any
necessity for an improvement in the method of describing their
bristles and hairs. As late as 1877 I described Rhaphiomydas as
a Mydaid, a notion which, three years later, appeared to me
absurd.

The explanation of this apparent obtuseness on my part, how¬
ever, is rather easy. During my residence in the United States,
although I was collecting all Diptera, I studied and worked up
monographically the Tipulidae , Cecidomyiidae , and Tabanidae ,
families which are not provided with macrochaetae. It was only
after my return to Europe that I undertook the study of Asiatic,
African, and Australian Diptera, and thus came into contact with
forms of all families. In 1880, while at work on my “ Enumeration
of the Diptera of the Malay Archipelago,” which appeared in
February, 1881, although 1 had for the first time to describe a con¬
siderable number of Diptera Cyelorrhaplia abounding in macro¬
chaetae, I still followed the old routine. Thus, in describing the
Ortalid genus Anguitula ( loc . cit ., p. 482, line 6 from bottom) I said:
“No bristles at all on the head; the usual erect bristles on the
vertex are replaced by a few hairs, visible only under a strong
lens,” etc. But when, later, I was preparing my “Supplement of
the Enumeration,” and had to describe a very bristly fly, a Dexid
( Urodexia , gen. n.), it occurred to me that the distribution of such
conspicuous bristles must be subject to some rule. I took my
time, worked out ray “ System of Chaetotaxy,” and published my
first paper upon it in 1881 ; my “ Supplement of the Enumeration ”
appeared in February, 1882. The thoracic bristles of Urodexia are
described in it chaetotactically as follows : “ Four dorso-central
rows ; the outer ones of five bristles each ; two intrahumeral bris-

NOTES ON CHAETOTAXY

155

ties, one humeral ; about five mesopleural, two sternopleural,
the posterior very long ; a tuft of hypopleural bristles.”

I need not enter here into details of the success of this new
method of description, of which an anonymous contemporary
said ( [Untom . JSTachr., 1883, p. 219) : “ It deserves the greatest

publicity, because it opens entirely new prospects for the determi¬
nation of Diptera, and will probably be soon universally adopted.”

That, with sufficient material, it is possible to give a chaetotactic
description of even very small Diptera, I have shown in a later
paper, “ On the Chaetotaxy of Cacoxenus indagator Lw.” (125,
1891).

It might have been expected that my papers on Chaetotaxy
would have been most welcome to Professor Brauer, when he
began, soon afterwards, to work at his “ Muscaria Schizometopa,”
the first instalment of which appeared in 1889. But, exasperated
as he was against me on account of my criticism of his paper
on Notacantha (89, 1882), he purposely abstained (of course, to
his own detriment) from using chaetotactic characters. In his
Preface he said : “ Who once begins to subdivide the genera
Tachina and Dexia , will be compelled to subdivide so far, that, for
the definition of species he will be reduced to use characters of
the lowest degree, as, for instance, the nmcrochaetae, etc.” 1 In
the same Preface, when speaking of macrochaetae, he sedulously
avoided even the use of my name in connection with them, and
mentioned only Rondani, Macquart, Loew, and Schiner. In his
choleric outburst against my new distribution of Diptera which I
published later (128, 1891), he denounced Chaetotaxy in the most
unmeasured terms. This obstinacy could not last forever.
Brauer soon became aware that he could not go on without using
chaetotactic characters, especially those based on the position of
thoracic macrochaetae. Protests and reclamations arose from
different sides, and compelled him to relent. In his “ Muscaria
Schizometopa,” Vol. IV, p. 3, at bottom (1895), he quoted a passage
of my Chaetotaxy (Trans. Ent. Soc., London, 1884, p. 513), in which

1 “ Wer anfangt die Gattung Tachina oder Dexia -zu zerlegen, der ist gezwungen,
so lange zu schalten, bis fiir die Arten nur ganz untergeordnete Cliaractere ubrig
bleiben, z. B. die Macrocliaetenstellung.”

156

NOTES ON CHAETOTAXY

I pointed out that “most of the Calyptrata , except the Antho-
myidae , have a tuft or row of bristles on the hypopleura, which
is destitute of them in the other families of Diptera.” Brauer
was candid enough to acknowledge that this family-character had
been discovered by Osten-Sacken.1 In his later publications
Brauer became so far converted to Chaetotaxy as to make use of
its terminology, which he had spurned before. In a notice about
the genus Aulacocephala Gerst. in the Anzeiyer Akad. Wiss.
Wien, 1899, p. 288, he uses the terms : sternopleuralborsten
and hypopleuralborsten. Nevertheless, in his “ Obituary of Mik ”
( Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1901, p. 4) Brauer could not resist the temp¬
tation of again venting his spite against me in the following
sentence, which stands there ci propos de bottes : “ Die Lehre von
der Borstenstellung wurde 1873, — lange bevor ein anderer den
gelehrten Namen ‘ Chaetotaxie ’ dafiir erfand — von Mik und Loew
gelibt, und erst in neuerer Zeit in ilirer Bedeutung gewiirdigt
(Girschner)” 2

Brauer would have been nearer the truth if he had named
Rondani as the originator of the idea of Chaetotaxy. As to
Brauer’ s statement about Girschner, although uttered ab irato , it is,
nevertheless, perfectly correct: it was the merit of Mr. E. Gir¬
schner to give to Chaetotaxy a much greater development and ap¬
plication than it had had before, and to treat it as a sine qua non of
descriptive dipterology. His enviable talent for drawing enabled
him to illustrate his papers by diagrams more eloquent than any
descriptions.

About the origin of the term macrochaetae , due to Rondani (1845),
its further history, and about the use of characters borrowed from
the position of bristles by Rondani and Rob.-Desvoidy, I have
given an account in my Chapter XIX, “Rondani and Loew.”

1 Tlie discovery of this important character has been, inadvertently, attributed to
Mr. E. Girschner by I)r. Job. Schnabl in the Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1902, p. 128. Upon
my friendly remonstrance (in Uteris) the very next number of the same periodical
(on p. 184) published the necessary correction. Mr. D. W. Coquillett reproduced the
same error in his remarkable paper, “ A Systematic Arrangement of the Families of
the Diptera” (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. XXIII, p. 05, 1901).

2 Translation : “ The doctrine about the position of bristles has been used in 1873
by Mik and Loew, long before another invented the learned name ‘Chaetotaxy ’ for
it, and it is only recently that its importance has been fully recognized (Girschner).”

NOTES ON CHAETOTAXY

157

Rondani ( Nuov . Ann. Sci. Nat., Bologna, 1845), when introdu¬
cing the name macrochaetae, did not exactly define the concept, but
explained the name as follows : “ A word which may be translated
by another one : crassisetae, and thus the ordinary term setae will
remain for bristles distinctly more slender (‘ piu esili ’), and the
temtpili for those which are the most delicate (‘ sottilissime ’)

In my “ Essay” ( Trans . Ent. Soc ., London, 1884, p. 501, at top),
I went a step farther in describing macrochaetae “ as organs of
orientation , not unlike the whiskers of a cat.” Such sensitive
organs, it may be readily assumed, must be connected with the
nervous system, the nerves penetrating to them through the chiti-
nous integument of the fly, and this penetration is indicated by
the scar which macrochaetae leave behind them when rubbed off.
Anatomists may, by and by, go beyond these hints, and add many
new facts to our knowledge about the role of macrochaetae as
organs of orientation.

A still unrealized desideratum is a Chaetotaxy of the legs of Diptera, which
would enable describers to define their position with exactness, as well as brevity.

The first attempt of this kind was made by J. Mik. In his “ Dipterologisehe
Untersuchungen,” Wien, 1878, p. 3, footnote, he says: “On the legs I distinguish
a front- and a hind-side ; an upper- and an under-side. When we imagine the leg
stretched out horizontally and perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the
body, the front-side is that which is turned towards the head, and the hind-side
that turned towards the end of the body ; the upper- and under-side, in such a
case, are self-understood.”

I accept this proposal as expedient, but I would improve it by the addition of
appropriate terms for intermediate positions. Assuming any femur or a tibia to
have the shape of a more or less irregular cylinder, we may define the position of
a bristle, or of a row of them, as being inserted on its upper (superior)-, or under
(inferior)- side, or on its front (anterior)- or hind (posterior)- side. A bristle, or
a row of them, may be situated on the line (edge) between the superior and ante¬
rior side; or between the anterior and posterior side, etc. In such a case I would
describe them as inserted on the supra-anterior, the supra-posterior, the ante-
inferior and post-inferior side.

For brevity’s sake a mode of notation might be adopted, analogous to that used
for the points of the compass: S (supra), I (infra), A (ante), P (post); and in
combination: S. A. (supra-anterior), S. P. (supra-posterior), A. I. (ante- inferior),
and P. I (post-inferior).

For still closer definitions of position, the combinations S.S.P., or S.P.P. etc.,
might be used, just as for the points of the compass.

It is evident that the minuteness of such characters, their multiplicity, their
unsteadiness, as well as the difficulty, in some cases, of obtaining specimens in a

158

TIIE BREACH BETWEEN LOEW AND SCIIINER

sufficient state of preservation, are some of the obstacles to be met with in the study
of the Chaetotaxy of the legs of Diptera. Nevertheless, difficulty is not an excuse
for the complete neglect of useful characters, and repeated experience alone is apt
to evolve the best method of utilizing them.

XXI AN ACCOUNT OF THE BREACH BETWEEN LOEW AND

SCIIINER

The cause of the rupture which occurred in 1858 between the
two eminent dipterologists was the intended publication by the Aus¬
trian State Printing-Office of an edition de luxe of the European
Trypetae (“ Die europaischen Bohrfliegen ”) which appeared in
Vienna in 1862 with the name of II. Loew as author, although,
according to the original plan, it was to be the joint work of Loew
and Schiner. Schiner published a separate paper : “ Die oster-
reichischen Trypeten ” ( Verh . zool.-bot. Gesellsch., Wien, 1858), in
the preface of which lie explained that, by an adroit manipulation at
headquarters, Loew had compelled him (Schiner) to withdraw from
any co-operation with him in the publication of “ Die europaischen
Bohrfliegen.” As this estrangement between two leading dipter¬
ologists has had some importance in the history of dipterology, I
have in this chapter given a detailed account of its origin and
progress. In my “ Introduction ” (p. 20) there is an allusion to
this very regrettable dissension.

In one of his letters to me (March 17, 1857) Loew, in describing
his occupations in general, had mentioned the intended publication
in the following terms : —

“ Finally T have compiled materials for a large work on Trypetae, and
worked out a portion of the text. It will he printed in the Im per. and Roy.
State Printing-Office in Vienna, with magnificent photographic figures of the
wings ; and will, after a rather long lapse of time, offer again to the public
an entomological publication in Atlas-folio. Do not laugh at this enormous
‘ magnification * of the little Trypetae ! The idea was not mine, but that
of the State Printing-Office, which intended to issue samples of photographic
plates (‘Muster von photographischen Abbild ungen ’), and asked me to
procure the necessary specimens (‘ Objecte ’) and to prepare the text. The
first part embraces European Trypetae. The second will contain all the
exotic species we can get hold of. In order to prepare the work for the
second part, and, in general, to afford a basis for the determination of

THE BREACH BETWEEN LOEW AND SCHINER

159

the Trypetidae, figures of the types of Wiedemann and other authors will be
made ; most of the drawings are finished, and several already lithographed ;
the editing and the composition of the text has been undertaken by my
friend Schiuer in Vienna. It would afford me great pleasure to receive
from you North American species for the great work on Trypelae,” etc.

When Scliiner’s accusation appeared, Loew called my attention
to it in a long letter of March, 1859 (the letter bears several suc¬
cessive dates), in which he gave me the following explanation of
the occurrence : —

“ In the last quarterly issue of the Vienna Zool.-bot. Gesellschaft you will
find a very malignant attack of Schiner against me, in which he accuses me
of several proceedings of such a nature that any decent man would hence¬
forth feel disinclined to have anything to do with me. I should be ashamed
if even one of his defamatory accusations was true. It is very distasteful
to me to take part in such personal squabbles, and doubly distasteful when
they are carried on with such dishonorable weapons as in the present case.
I hope, however, to get out of this difficulty without any harm to myself
(‘ Hoffentlich werde ich es, ohne mir etwas zu vergeben, aucli bier umgehen
konnen ’). First of all, I have written to the head-quarters of the Society
and drawn their attention to the fact that it is not customary to accept for
publication in the ‘Transactions ’ of a Society such a kind of invective with¬
out first hearing the attacked party ; and next, by sending them Dr. Schiner’s
letters to me, I have proved that his statements are not only entirely un¬
founded, but that they are deliberate perversions of the truth and lies
(‘ Liigen ’). Finally, I have required that a publication from head-quarters
should, in their own name, declare in some appropriate place in their Pro¬
ceedings, that the produced letters of Schiner have convinced them of the
unveracity of his statements, and at the same time that they should express
their decided disapproval of the untimely publication of his accusations in
their ‘ Transactions.’ I shall at first wait for an answer. Should the
required satisfaction in a becoming form be refused, then I shall, of course,
feel compelled to obtain it myself, and I shall certainly do it in the most
effective manner (‘ eclatantester Weise ’). You see that, even in peaceful
entomology, it is often difficult to avoid strife, especially when one has to do
with people who are less concerned about the substance of the question
than about the satisfaction of petty personal vanities. I do my best not to
be disgusted with the whole matter by such foulness (‘ Stankereien ’)•”

Loew’s protest in 1859 does not seem to have had any further
consequences. The only trace of it I find in literature is that
Loew, from that time, conceived an intense rancor against Schiner,

160

THE BREACH BETWEEN LOEW AND SCHINER

and gave vent to it in a series of virulent attacks upon him per¬
sonally, and against his publications. (Compare Wien. Ent.
Monats., 1864, p. 122-123, footnote; ibid., p. 249-255; Berl. Ent.
Zeit., 1864, p. 334-346 ; ibid., 1865, p. 356.) The first of these
attacks especially is a curious exhibition of impotent rage exhaled
in expressions and images in the worst possible taste. This seems
to have been the whole amount of satisfaction which Loew received
after his threat to obtain it in “ eclatan tester Weise,” and after five
years of excitement ! Schiner’s rejoinders are comparatively calm
and dignified {Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1864, p. 296-301 ; Berl. Ent. Zeit.,
1865, p. 125).

The malignant and most unfair criticism of the first instalments
of Schiner’s “Fauna Austriaca” in Gerstaecker’s Bericht . . . Jalire
1859 und 1860, p. 277, was likewise written by Loew; but the first
part of it, on p. 276, is the work of Gerstaecker himself, and is
quite fair.

For Loew, after some time, the charm of novelty attaching to his
Atlas-folio Trypeta-work had been exhausted. He, whose imagi¬
nation in 1857 revelled in the preparation of a second volume,
while the first had not yet been written, wrote me four years later
(June 3, 1861) that the work was progressing slowly; “I have,
unfortunately, only four sheets ready” (“Leider habe ich nur vier
Bogen fertig ”). The first volume was to contain twenty-seven
sheets.

In the Preface of the Atlas-folio on Trypetae which is dated June 24, 1862, Loew
says (line 9 from top): “Die gegenwartige im December 1860 ahgeschlossene
Arbeit,” etc. This statement is in glaring contradiction to the above-quoted
passage in Loew’s letter to me dated June 3, 1861 (that is, nearly six months
later) : “ I have, unfortunately, only four sheets ready.” The last letter deserves,
of course, more credence than the Preface of June, 1862, and this contradiction
shows to what straits Loew had been reduced by this unfortunate “Atlas-folio”
business !

Between 1861 and 1862 Loew seems to have made a resolute
effort, for, in a letter dated November 21-I)ecember 18, 1862, he
wrote : “ The tiresome Trypeta-work (‘ das leidige Trypeta-Werk ’)
in Vienna is finally finished.” Under such circumstances the pub¬
lication of a second volume was out of question.

In justice to Schiner, I shall reproduce now his account of Loew’s

THE BREACH BETWEEN LOEW AND SCHINER

161

behavior towards him in this instance. This account, which pro¬
voked Loew so much, appeared in the Preface of the paper “ Die
bsterreichisclien Trypeten,” published by Schiner in the Verh. zool.-
bot. Gresellsch., Wien, 1858, p. 635. Schiner says: —

“ The present instalment treats of the Aealyptrate Genus Trypeta, an
interesting group of the great family Muscidae. According to my former
announcement, the Dolichopodidae should have followed now ; this early
publication of the Trypetidae is due to a particular cause, of which I shall
give a brief account here.

“ The experiments made at the Imperial State Printing-Office, with the
co-operation of Dr. Ernst Heeger, for the purpose of reproducing by photog¬
raphy objects of natural history, magnified by the microscope, had been
so promising and successful that Hofrath von Auer, Director of this de¬
partment, conceived the project of publishing a larger work to show the
practical advantages of microtypical illustrations of objects of natural his¬
tory. It was upon my suggestion that the choice fell upon a Monograph
of Trypetae , the wings of which offered the greatest variety of patterns for
microscopical reproduction. Herr von Auer entrusted me with the com¬
pilation of the text, and acceded to my further proposition to invite for
co-operation the well-known monographer of Trypetae , Director Loew in
Meseritz. Loew accepted my invitation with pleasure and showed at first
a great deal of interest in the undertaking.

“ In the meantime the Trypeta- wings, furnished by me, and from my col¬
lection, had been reproduced by the microtypical process, and during the
meeting of naturalists in 1856 the undertaking was so far advanced that
it became possible to produce before this Assembly some prints of the mag¬
nified wings, as well as the general plan of the publication.

“ Director Loew, who was present at the meeting, showed this time less
interest in the undertaking, and did not even attempt to have an interview
with Herr von Auer in regard to the matter. This made me the more
eager to press the business, and to stimulate my co-operator for the cause.
I insisted especially upon a division of the work between us ; I would have
undertaken the faunistic department, that is, all that concerns local occur¬
rence and life-habits of the European and extra-European Trypetae and their
synonymy, — in a word, the compilation of the materials. Loew would
have had to provide the final systematic distribution and the drawing up
of diagnoses and of descriptions.

u At the beginning of 1857 I had accomplished my share of the task of
preparing the text, and had sent my finished manuscript to Loew. He
gave me the assurance that at least a portion of the text, ready for the
press, would be provided by him by the time when at least three plates with

11

162

THE BREACH BETWEEN LOEW AND SCHINER

the figures of the wings would have been finished. At the end of 1857 this
condition had been fulfilled, the fiuished plates had received the approba¬
tion of Loew, and moreover sixty-three single wings, all from my collection,
had been photographed. Notwithstanding this, Loew had, up to that time,
not sent a single line of the text. Constant urging on my part had no other
result than to call forth repeated apologies from Loew, who, in the mean¬
time, without informing me of it, had applied directly to the Imperial
Printing-Office, proposing an arrangement of the plates different from that
which had been agreed upon between us, and, under the pretext that under
my supervision the undertaking was not progressing, — had claimed the
right of directing it alone from Meseritz !

“ Under such circumstances I had to choose between two alternatives,
either to insist upon the rights conferred upon me by the confidence of
Hofrath von Auer, and to dismiss a co-operator whom I had myself proposed,
and who now attempted to oust me ; or to abandon the whole business to
Loew alone, and to withdraw from it in quiet resignation. I preferred the
latter course and imparted my decision to Mr. Hackel, who had been sent
to me on this business. I wrote at the same time to Dr. Loew, telling him
that I reserved to myself the right to make known to my colleagues the
cause which had induced me to give up my co-operation in the Monograph,
which had already been publicly announced as our joint work at home and
abroad. To Herr v. Auer, who would have certainly sustained my claims
in this case, I explained my resolution with the assurance that after my
withdrawal I left the undertaking in the hands of Loew, which were the
best possible for it.”

Scliiner goes on explaining that after his manuscript had been
returned to him by Loew, he decided to publish it in the form of
an anticipated instalment of his “ Diptera Austriaca.” He fore¬
shadows at the same time a future work on Diptera which would
be, for the dipterological fauna of Austria, what Redtenbacher’s
work was for Coleoptera. He fulfilled this promise a few years
later by the publication of his “Fauna Austriaca. Diptera” (1862-
1864).

This straightforward, detailed, and evidently truthful account
of the whole transaction, given by Scliiner, must have taken Loew
by surprise, lie probably had expected that his good-natured and
modest friend would keep silent. The frenzied but impotent
wrath which he gave vent to in His letter to me (and probably to
other correspondents) was a sudden explosion. Rut that was all!
lie never attempted publicly to vindicate himself against Schiner's

THE BREACH BETWEEN LOEW AND SCHINER

163

accusation, and took his revenge in vowing against him an intense
hatred, the trace of which in literature will remain a blot on his
memory !

Schiner took Loew’s conduct deeply, perhaps too much, to heart,
as it seems to have affected him during the rest of his life. In
1868, he sold his collection to the Imperial Museum in Vienna.
He wrote me (May 7, 1868) (translation): —

“ What I shall begin now, I do not know. I have devoted twenty years
of my life to the dear Diptera, and sacrificed for their sake everything an
honest inquirer can sacrifice, and have reaped the greatest ingratitude.
Will it not be better for me to remain silent in future, and to enjoy nature
and its secrets merely sub camera ? I am weary, not from the work of
research, but weary of all the struggle, and the attacks that after all had
no other aim than whether A or B should have the supremacy ! Had not
some good and faithful friends, like Winnertz, Haliday, and yourself, rny
dear Sir, sent me from time to time an encouraging message, I should have
desisted long ago from any further publication.”

Loew wrote me (December 22, 1868): “Schiner sold his collec¬
tion to the Imperial Museum of Vienna for 2000 florins. At pres¬
ent he is said to be occupied with spiders.” Schiner died on July
7, 1873. Loew wrote to me (J uly 17, 1873) in the following terms :
“ You may have heard that Schiner died after a prolonged state of
great suffering. I regret this new loss of a worker in dipterology
which is so much in need of such, and I deeply deplore that so
few new recruits are forthcoming.” There is a story of a German
professor of great ability, who published a crushing criticism of a
contemporary publication. It so happened that the author of it
died very soon afterwards. Upon which the Professor observed,
with great composure : “ Das habe ich nicht gewollt ! ” ( That was

not what I intended !) Loew seems to have felt like making a
similar remark, upon hearing of the death of poor Schiner.
Schiner’s merit as a popularizer cannot be appreciated enough ; in
his time he was the good genius of dipterology ; without him this
science, as it stood in 1860, would have very likely undergone, as
to propagation among the public, a period of standstill. His self-
denial, his perseverance, reserve, and conscientiousness deserve
the highest praise. Nevertheless, for some, to me, inexplicable

164

BRAUER AND MIK

reason he received but scant justice. I have not been able to dis¬
cover any obituary notice of him, and it seems that none has been
published. It is through my friend Ivowarz that I ascertained the
place and date of his birth (Fronsberg, in 1813) ; he was therefore
sixty years old at the time of his death.

The Atlas-folio publication on Trypetae appeared in 1862, and
it was in March of the same year that Loew, upon my asking his
permission to describe some new North American Trypetae which
I had discovered, and which I had a perfect right to describe
without his permission, gave me this characteristic answer :
“ Your frank question I answer with an equally frank confession
of a foible of mine, that, in regard to this particular family, I am
a little jealous of the publications of others! ” (Compare my “ In¬
troduction,” p. 20.) And this “ frank confession ” affords the
explanation of Loew’s extraordinary conduct towards Schiner!

^ XXII BRAUER AND MIK

An Account of their Opposition to my new System of Diptera, fol¬
lowed by a Characterization of these two Dipteroloyists

Professor Brauer was very wroth about my Chaetotaxy (compare
above, Chapter XX), but after the little paper in the Ent.
Monthly 3fag., London, 1891, p. 35-39 (128, 1891), which threatened
to upset his “ System,” his ire against the “ Entomographer ” and
“ Catalogue-maker,” as he was pleased to call me, knew no bounds,
and found expression in a paper, “ On the Families of Diptera,” which
he read at the meeting of the Zoologisch-Botanische Gesellschaft
in Vienna on the 6th of May, 1891. An abstract of this paper,
published under that date in the Proceedings of the Society, con¬
tains the following theses, which I translate verbatim : —

“The incredible error of some entomographers [sic !], that the larvae of
insects have no importance in classification.”

“ The erroneous opinion that the position, the presence or absence, of the
so-called ‘ macrochaetae ’ have any importance in the definition of families
of Diptera, their importance being confined to species and genera, as hairy
and bristly forms occur in every family.” (!)

“ The systematic position of the Ptychopteridae. The characteristic

^ jbui. ^

, j9 ' 1 S A i | pry- ^ ,

v \L h : l Fi <2xd . Iai^ , ) c\ p JT i ) list? , VA At. )

BRAUER AND MIK

165

transverse Furrow, pointed out by Osten Sacken, is not homologous to that
of the Tipulidae, as it corresponds to the anterior furrow of the thorax,
that of the Tipulidae to the posterior one. Ptychoptera has all the charac¬
ters of the Eucephala.”

Brauer, in this connection, always speaks of the genus Ptycho¬
ptera alone ; if he had examined the thorax of Tanyderus and Idio-
plasta , which also belong to the section Ptycliopterina , he would
have at once perceived that his pretended distinction between the
anterior and posterior furrows has no foundation whatever. The
mesothoracic suture, characteristic of the Tipulidae , is exactly in
the same place in the section Ptycliopterina as in the other sections.
The genus Ptychoptera has furrows which have nothing to do with
that suture, but disguise it to an experienced eye. In Tanyderus
and Idioplasta these deceptive furrows do not exist, and the meso¬
thoracic suture is distinctly visible at its usual place.

Finally, Brauer protested against “ compilers of catalogues ” who,
without further proof, permit themselves to introduce changes in
the system, and upset the opinions of entomologists of “ established
reputation'''1 (“gewiegte Entomologen ”).

The notion that Ptychoptera is not a Tipulid, and is related to
the Culicidae, seems to have been a particular hobby of Brauer.
He reverts to it on more than one occasion. In his article “ Ueber
die Verwandtschaft und systematische Stellung der Blepharo-
ceriden'’'’ (Wiener Ent. Zeit ., 1882, p. 1-4), a short paper which,
by the way, abounds in very dubious assertions,1 Brauer says :
“ To the tribe Eucephala belong also the P ty diopter idae, a relation¬
ship which Osten Sacken has always contested, because he takes
them for Tipulidae .”

To sustain this proposition, Brauer adduces Adolph’s theory of
the venation of Diptera (Wien Denkschriften , 1882, p. 94, at bottom),
and also some allegations about the number of Malpighian vessels of
Culex , Psyclioda , and Ptychoptera, the importance of which, in this
particular case, is still questionable. Since 1882, the position of
Mik, between Brauer and myself, became very difficult. In that year,

1 It is refreshing, as well as instructive, to compare this article of Brauer with the
six pages of Eduard Becher in the same volume of the Wiener Ent. Zeit.,
p. 49-54, modest in tone, but pregnant with facts most suggestive of future develop¬
ments. About the position of Phora, however, I cannot agree with Becher.

166

BRAUER AND MIK

his paper, “ Zu Osten Sacken’s Chaetotaxie der Dipteren ” ( Verh.
zool.-bot. Gresellsch ., Wien, 1882), provoked the ire of Braner. But
when in the same year my criticism of Braner’ s paper on Notacantha
appeared (89, 1882), Mik felt that he had to choose between us. He
stood by Braner, for the very plausible reason that it was to his
advantage to be on good terms with the very sensitive Custodian
of the dipterological department of the Museum in Vienna.
Conscious of having hurt Brauer’s feelings by his publication on
my Chaetotaxy, he did his utmost to atone for this failing.
Brauer’s paper on the Notacantha (1882), which I had demolished
by my criticism, Mik praised to the skies in an elaborate article
( Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1882, p. 176-177). Of Brauer’s system of
Diptera he became a staunch supporter, especially of the group
Encephala, and of the position of Pty diopter a within it. He be¬
came most ingenious in his arguments. In the Wiener Ent. Zeit.,
1882, p. 819, he said: “ Brauer has satisfactorily proved that
Ptychoptera must be excluded from the Tipulidae ; any unpreju¬
diced observer of a species of Ptychoptera in life will at once
recognize in its whole behavior (‘ in ihren ganzen Benehmen ’) an
evident resemblance to the Mycetophilidae (! !) and not to the
Tipulidae. What is the use of this persistent resistance against
facts that are obvious? ” etc. Mik would not have dared to utter
such an absurdity, if he had seen the flight of the American
genus Bittacomorplia , which, although it belongs to the section
Pty chopter ina, is, in its mode of flight, unlike any known Tipulid
or Mycetophilid !

With regard to Beling, Mik observes ( Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1886,
p. 287) : “ He still continues to place Ptychoptera among the
Tipulidae ! ”

Mr. Verr all’s “List of the British Tipulidae” (Ent. Monthly
May., 1886-1888) suggests to Mik the same remark ( Wiener Ent.
Zeit., 1889, p. 136) : “What astonishes me is, that Mr. Verrall, in
his ‘ List of Tipulidae ,’ comprises also the Dixidae and Ptycho-
pteridae ; — probably from mere deference (‘Pietat’) for the old,
but quite unjustifiable systematic position of these two families of
Diptera eucephalad

A whole page of discussion in another place ( Wiener Ent. Zeit.,

BRAUER AND MIK

167

1888, p. 226-227), concludes thus: “ To return to Pty diopter a, I
recommend the comparison of the figures of the wings of Culex,
Dixa , and Ptychoptera in Van der Wulp’s ‘ Diptera Neerlandica,’
Tab. X, f. 2, 9, and 10. A glance at these figures shows us, that
the wing of Dixa has the greatest resemblance to that of Culex ,
and that the wing of Pty diopter a discloses a near relationship to
that of Dixa. And Dixa is a gnat and not a cranejly ! ” It seems
natural to ask, why Mik recommends the study of a plate of Van
der Wulp, and not that of the natural objects ? The reason is this :
Brauer, at the end of his paper, “ Vergleichende Untersuchungen
des Fliigelgeaders der Dipteren-Familien nach Adolph’s Theorie ”
( Wien Denksdiriften , 1882), introduced the following singular
“ captatio benevolentiae ” : “As the best existing figures of wings,
which are also applicable to Adolph’s theory, we can recommend
those of Van der Wulp in his ‘Diptera Neerlandica.’ ” Evidently
Mik wanted to please Brauer in referring to these same plates.1

In 1890, a change seems to have taken place in the disposition
of Mik towards Brauer, in consequence of the publication in that
year of Brauer’ s first instalment of his Muscaria Schizometopa. I
noticed this change in his correspondence with me, and it is also
evident in Mik’s references to Brauer’s new publication (in the
Wiener Ent. Zeit ., 1890, p. 155 and 159 ; 1892, p. 55) ; in the acri¬
monious reply by Brauer and Bergenstamm (ibid., 1892, p. 108) ;
and in the rejoinder of Mik ( ibid ., p. 110-113).

It is at that time that Mik, in an unguarded moment, praised
the systematic essay I had published in the Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1892
(130, 1892) in the following terms (letter of December 10, 1892) : “ I
thank you for sending me your interesting systematic study. It
suits me better than Brauer’s publications on the same subject.
There are some points, of course, in which everybody will not
agree with you. The system itself is certainly more natural, and
less one-sided than that of Brauer. I rejoice in the expectation of
the second part,” etc.2

1 Similar efforts of Mik in favor of Brauer will be pointed out in my List
(93, 1883), where he supported Brauer’s astounding assertions concerning the rela¬
tionship between Scenopinus and the Mjdaidae.

2 “ Ich danke fiir die Zusendung Hirer interessanten systematischcn Studie. Sie
conveniert mir mehr als Brauer’s Arbeiten liber das gleiche Subject. Naturlich sind

168

BE AUER AND MIK

This confession notwithstanding, Mik did not muster up courage
to appear with his true opinion before the public. My above
quoted 130, 1892, which he had praised in his letter, is not men¬
tioned at all in his “ Dipterologische Referate.” Two years later,
in his notice on Kowarz’s “ List of the Diptera of Bohemia ” ( Wiener
But. Zeit ., 1894, p. 31), Mik made an obscure deprecatory allusion
to my work in the following terms : “It has agreeably surprised
us that the author lias not been misled (‘ sich nicht beirren liess ’)
by new researches which still require confirmation (‘ einer Ivlarung
bediirfen ’), or which he had not had the opportunity to verify
himself.” The fact is that Kowarz had approved my distribution
in a letter to me, but he was of course not bound to introduce it
immediately into his “ List.”

All these tergiversations did not prevent me from maintaining
my good relations with Mik as long as he lived, even when, in the
matter of Paracrocerci (156, 1897), I felt bound to criticize him
rather severely. This also speaks for the good nature of Mik, and
merely proves the fatal influence upon him of Brauer.

In criticizing Brauer’ s reconstruction of the system of Diptera,
I never intended to disparage his merit in another branch of ento¬
mology. His real vocation was the biology of insects. As early
as 1850, he began the publication of a series of excellent papers on
the early stages and the habits of Neuropterous insects ( Chrysopa ,
Osmylus , Panorpa , Mantispa , Mynneleon, Bittacus , Ascalphus ,
Borens'). The climax of his success was reached in the investiga¬
tion of the history of the Oestridae , which became his life-work,
and attracted universal attention.

The beginning of Brauer’s study of the Oestridae is told by
himself, in his first publication about them : “ Die Oestriden des
Hochwildes,” etc. ( Verh . zool.-bot. Gesellsch ., Wien, 1858, p. 385-
714). Brauer’s friend, the dipterologist Dr. Egger, was surgeon
at the Austrian Court, and attended the Imperial hunts, and in
this capacity became very useful in procuring opportunities, as

Einzelheiten, mit welchen nicht jeder iibereinstimmen wird. Das System ist aber
sieher natiirlieher und nicht so einseitig als das Brauer ’sche. Ich freue mich auf den
zweiten Theil,” etc.

BRAUER AND MIK

169

well as material, for Brauer. Loew wrote me (October 1, 1858) : “ In
dipterology, we have nothing new to offer. The greatest interest
is afforded by the minute and thorough investigations of Brauer
in Vienna on the European Oestridae. Zeal, ability, and entire
freedom from all other preoccupations are combined in him, and
enable him to produce work of the highest excellence. The num¬
ber of the known European species has now risen to twenty , and
probably more are to follow. One of the most interesting among
the new species comes from Russia, and was for a long time known
oi dy in a single specimen in my collection. It was discovered
many years ago by Pastor Biittner, of Schleck, in Curland ( Ga-
strophilus lativentris Loew).”

Those who want to appreciate Brauer at his best, should read,
as a specimen of his powers, the account of the minute and per¬
severing observations on the common bot-fly of the horse ( Gastro-
philus equi ) in the “ Monographic der Oestriden,” p. 56-66, 1863.
In the course of these studies, Brauer came to investigate, and to
describe with more accuracy than had been done before, the mode
of pupation of the Diptera, and of the emergence of the imago
(compare ibid., p. 32-34 ; and also Brauer’ s communication to
Schiner, Verb, zool.-bot. Gesellsch., Wien, 1864, p. 209). He pro¬
posed very happily chosen names for the two forms of transforma¬
tion which he had defined. Although his ideas were criticized by
an experienced dipterologist, Dr. Gerstacker, I adopted them at
once, for, having bred many Diptera from larvae, I was fully
prepared for his generalization. But Brauer went too far when,
later, he imagined he had discovered the two primary subdivisions
of the Diptera. His Cyclorrhapha with their peculiar barrel¬
shaped pupa were long ago defined by Latreille and called Athe-
ricera (Fam. Naturelles, 1825, p. 425). A still greater error of
Brauer was the suppression, as suborder, of the Nemocera Latr.,
which was even a better defined suborder than the Cyclorrhapha.
For this reason, in my new subdivision, instead of two suborders, I
adopted three , and gave them double names, borrowed from La¬
treille and from Brauer ; these names had the advantage of being
descriptive of the characters derived from the mode of transforma¬
tion of the larva, as well as from the antennae, the principal organ

170

BRAUER AND MIK

of orientation of the imago : Orthorrhapha JVemocera, Orthorrhapha
Brachycera , and Cyclorrhapha Aihericera.

In the already quoted passage in the “Monographic der Oestriden,”
1863, p. 32-34, Brauer announced the result of his researches in
natural and unassuming language. “ I am too little acquainted
with all the divisions of Diptera to introduce a new system, and
it would lead me too far at present. I merely intend to call atten¬
tion to something which, so far as I know, has not been mentioned
before.” But since 1863, elated by the excessive praise, amount¬
ing to adulation, of his friends, Brauer gradually underwent the
transformation which became apparent after the death of Loew,
and his own appointment as Custodian of the dipterological collec¬
tion in the Museum of Vienna. In 1880 began the publication of
his quartos, in which he displayed his entire incapacity for syste¬
matic dipterology, and thus, for a mirage of ambition, marred his
fame for a brilliant and, in its way, unique career in the biology
of insects !

This chapter on Brauer had been written long ago when, in June,
1901, the Vienna Zoological Botanical Society did me the honor to
send me the volume : “ Botanik und Zoologie in Oesterreich in
den Jahren 1850 bis 1900,” published on the occasion of the fiftieth
anniversary of its foundation. In this monumental work, intended
for history, the compilation of the paragraph on Diptera (p. 344-
348) was of course entrusted to Brauer. With his usual careless¬
ness, he apparently accomplished this task off-hand, from memory,
and without consulting any literary documents. About Schiner,
his compatriot and collaborator, he has this: “Any one who, like
the writer of these lines, was acquainted with Schiner in 1850 and
knew that at that time Diptera were entirely unknown to him (he
studied ornithology and botany), will appreciate the energy and
application that enabled him, in 1862, to publish the first volume
of his “ Fauna Austriaca, Diptera.”

I find in Hagen’s “Bibliotheca Entomologica,” Vol. II, p. 124,
that Schiner’s first publication is dated 1851, and consists of a
“List of beetles, new for the Austrian fauna, and not contained
in Redtenbacher’s work.” The date of 1851 of this publication

BRAUER AND MIK

171

presupposes for Scliiner a study of several, perhaps many years,
at any rate before the date 1850, assigned to it by Brauer. In a
letter to me, dated 1868, and quoted by me on p. 163 above,
Scliiner mentioned his twenty years of occupation with Diptera,
which shows that he must have begun it about 1848. This
instance suffices for the rest, as an example of Brauer’ s inaccuracy.

But the principal task for Brauer should have consisted in giving
an account of his own work on Diptera. Unfortunately, with ante¬
cedents like his, it was easy to foresee that this task would prove
impossible for him, and the result has justified this prevision. As,
in this “ Report,” Brauer could not forego the temptation of a re¬
newed attack upon me, I feel bound to take notice of it here, even
at the risk of repeating myself.

One of the principal events of Brauer’s scientific career was the
publication, in 1883, of his new “ System of Diptera.” His “ Report ”
does not contain a single word about it. Brauer was evidently
ashamed to recall this hastily constructed, incoherent scheme, in
which the preposterous group Encephala embraced the following
medley of families : Mycetophilidae , Bibionidae , Chironomidae , Culi-
cidae , Blepha rocerid a e , Simuliidae , Psychodidae , Rhyphidae , and
even the Ptychopterina, which were thus separated from the Tipu-
lidae ! This silence of Brauer about his “ System ” saved him from
the disagreeable duty of reporting the doleful tale of its complete
collapse. The intervention of Prof. L. C. Miall (of Leeds), with
his statement about the position of the brain of Chironomus,
demolished at one stroke the edifice of Brauer’s pretended “Unter-
suchungen ” and “ Thatsachen ! ” Whether this important omis¬
sion was consistent with Professor Brauer’s duty towards the
learned Society which had entrusted him with the task of preparing
the Report on Diptera, is another question.

The history of the eollapse of Brauer’s “ System ” is told in my article in the
Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1893, p. 378-379 : “ Rejoinder to Professor Brauer’s ‘ Thatsachliche
Berichtigungen,’ ” etc.; in Brauer’s “ Bemerkungen,” etc. (ibid., 1894, p. 235), in
which, with his usual haste and negligence, he quoted a statement from Weis-
mann, that he believed to refer to Corethra, while it referred to Chironomus ; and
in the short reply, of seven lines only, of Professor Miall (ibid., 1894, p. 447),
stating that “ the quotation from Weismann related to Chironomus and not to
Corethra, which has no place in this discussion,” etc.

172

BRAUER AND MIK

Conscious of his failure, Brauer, in his “ Report,” attempts to
save at least his subdivision of the order Diptera into two sub¬
orders, Orthorrliapha and Cyclorrhapha , which he considered as a
great discovery. As I had pointed out the expediency of adopting
three suborders, instead of two, Brauer had to attack me. He did
so without once mentioning my name, in the following pompous
but obscure passage ( [loc . cit., p. 346) : —

“ Die gefundenen Thatsachen werden standhalten ; denn sie werden
dadurch nicht umgestossen, dass jemand auf Grundlage ganz derselben
Charaktere drei oder mehr Gruppen festhiilt und in der Einbildung lebt,
ein neues System zu machen, indeni er die Schlussstriche der Gruppen ver-
mehrt. Ein System muss sich aus der Untersuchung der Formen ergeben,
nicht aus willkiirlichen Abstractionen des Geistes, und das Wahre wird
durch die Nattirlichkeit desselben bekraftigt.”

“ Mit der Einteilung der Dipteren in Orthorrliapha und Cyclorrhapha
deckt sich die von Weismann acceptirte Einteilung nach den extremsten
Formen : Typus Culex und Typus Muscat

The following is an attempt at an a peu pres translation : “ The discovered facts
will remain ; they will not be upset when somebody adopts three or more groups
based upon exactly the same characters, in the vain conceit of having founded a
new system by merely multiplying the lines of division between the groups. A
system must be the result of the study of forms, and not of arbitrary abstractions
of the mind; what is true will then be strengthened by its appearing natural.”

“ The division of Diptera in Orthorrliapha and Cyclorrhapha coincides with the
division adopted by Weismann, based upon the two extreme forms: the type of
Culex and the type of Musca .”

I am not aware that the first part of the above passage, intended
as a criticism of my method of classification, can be fairly accepted
as such. As to the second part it contains most decidedly an argu¬
ment for my subdivision, and not for that of Brauer. My Nemocera
vera ( Culicidae , Chironomidae , Tipulidae,e tc.) represent indeed the
type of Culex. But my Nemocera anomala ( Bibio , Simulium,
Blepharocera, llhyphus, Orphnephild ), with their holoptic heads,
well-developed pulvilli, etc., do not reproduce that type in the
least! The rest of Brauer’s Orthorrliapha — that is, the great
majority of them ( Tahani , Bomhylii , Asili, etc.) — have nothing to
do with the type of Culex , and reduce Brauer’s assertion ad
ahsurdum !

I maintain my conviction that “ the true end of classification is

BEAUER AND MIK

173

an easier survey of affinities , a temporary aid to memory. In space
and time all divisions become convergent and finally confluent”
(Berl. Bnt. Zeit., 1895, p. 160; also reproduced in my “Intro¬
duction,” p. 14). Brauer’s suborder Orthorrhapha , instead of
being a help to memory, is, on the contrary, a confusing concept, as
it tends to obliterate the breach between Macquart’s Nemocera and
his Brachycera , a discontinuity which, as I have shown repeatedly,
and lately in my “Introduction” (p. 11), is greater than that
between the latter and Latreille’s Athericera (which correspond to
Brauer’s Cyclorrhapha'). When Brauer, after Loew’s death in
1879, began to consider himself as his natural successor, he was so
little prepared for general dipterology that he was entirely un¬
acquainted with the existence of such a breach. As late as 1883,
in his “Zweifl. d. K. Mus. in Wien,” Yol. Ill, 1883, p. 9 (in the
middle) he has this passage : “ Let dipterologists, as a matter of
convenience, continue to speak of Nemoeera and Brachycera , such
natural groups do not exist, and it is impossible to define them
with natural characters.” About this thesis Brauer wrote a long
dissertation QSitzungsh. AJcad. Wiss., Wien, 1885, p. 385-413)
which is rather heavy reading, and consists of a compilation of most
startling propositions (for instance on p. 411 about the analogies in
the venation of Rhyphus , Leptis , etc.).

My three suborders are a reproduction of the arrangement of
Latreille, and I believe to have done justice enough to Brauer in
connecting his well-chosen names, descriptive of the early stages of
these insects, with Latreille’s names, derived from the structure of
the antennae.

At the end of his “ Report ” (p. 347 at bottom), Brauer, who
never forgave me my guilt of Chaetotaxy, could not help venting
his spite once more in reiterating, like an unavoidable refrain , the
concluding passage of his “Obituary of Mik ” ( Wiener But. Zeit.,
1901, p. 4) : “ The doctrine of the distribution of bristles has been
in 1873 put in practice by Mik and Loew, — long before another
invented for it the learned term Chaetotaxy ! ” (Compare above,
p. 156.)

Brauer avoids calling me by my name, as if it was that of the Evil One. Here
be calls me another (“ ein anderer ”), and in a passage quoted above be speaks of

174

BRAUER AND MIK

me as somebody (“jemand ”). If in my references to Brauer’s ill-will towards me
I have not always been able to maintain the tone suitable to scientific gravity, the
fault is not on my side !

Prof. Josef Mik’s greatest merit, as dipterologist, consisted in his
intimate knowledge of the dipterological fauna of central Europe,
as far as it is represented in the “Fauna Austriaca” of Schiner.
Within this department, and especially during the earlier part of
his activity, Mik contributed a considerable amount of useful
descriptive work to nearly all the families of Diptera. In addition
to this, during his whole career he never ceased to produce papers
on the biology of Diptera, carefully worked out, and provided with
well-drawn illustrations. In both respects, in descriptive as in
biological work, he deserves an honorable place among the special¬
ists in this order of insects. Another merit of his consisted in
his correspondence with many dipterologists in different parts of
Europe, in his correct naming of specimens for them, and his
naturally obliging disposition in assisting them. lie has been very
useful in diffusing the study of Diptera in France, Italy, England,
and even in North America; and this merit, so far as I have
been able to observe during my travels, has been duly appreciated
everywhere.

Loew, in a letter to me, dated from Guben, March 20-22, 1875,
that is, twelve years after the appearance of Mik on the scientific
stage and twenty-five years before the end of his career, spoke of
him as follows : “ Mik, who is perfectly capable of good work, is
prevented by his scrupulosity, and other peculiarities of his charac¬
ter, from making as much progress as one could wish.” 1

What Loew meant by “ scrupulosity ” I do not quite understand,
unless it refers to Mik’s exaggerated attention to trifles, and his
principal defect, the propensity to scatter his working power,
instead of concentrating it on some well-defined task. It was
especially since 1882, when the Wiener Entomologische Zeitsclirift
began to appear, that an unlimited facility for publication was
offered to Mik, and he soon displayed a foible which may be
called, to use a mild term, an excess of self-assertion , stimulated by

1 “ Mik, der Gutes zu leisten alle Fahigkeit hat, kommt in Folge seiner Scrupulo-
sitat und anderer Charactereigenthumliclikeiten, nicht so vorwarts, als wold zu wiin-
schen ware.”

BRAUER AND MIK

175

a regrettable vanity. Mik gradually grew up in his own self¬
esteem as a critic, and allowed himself to express opinions and to
lay down rules which far exceeded his intellectual endowment.
He thus became guilty, as I am going to show, of many untenable
assertions, and involved in glaring inconsistencies.

Under the general headings of “ Dipterologische Notizen”
( Wiener Ent. Zeit ., 1883, p. 34, 64), and later of “ Dipterologische
Miscellen ” ( Wiener Ent. Zeit. from 1886 up to 1900, the year of
Mile's death), Mik published more than two hundred disconnected,
often long-winded notices, criticisms, observations, corrections, etc.,
of every kind, of which, from time to time, he gave a list
(“ Inhaltsiibersicht ”). Supposing even that the multitude of facts,
thus offered, are useful and trustworthy (which is by no means
certain), the difficulty alone of getting access to them makes them
almost useless. In the “Introduction” to this “Record” (p. 18)
I said : “ Entomological literature would become intolerable if it
were considered every one’s duty to criticize and contradict in
print the many errors which continually rise to the surface.” Mik
has been a sinner in this respect, and the reproach of egotism
cannot be withheld from him.

The same defect of obnoxious self-assertion appears in the habit
of Mik of introducing a multitude of generic names for the sake of
having the pleasure of appending his mihi to them. As the fauna
of central Europe, Mik’s specialty, did not offer him many legitimate
opportunities for exercising this fancy, he had recourse to two
expedients: the first of them consisted in the unnecessary sub¬
division of well-established genera. In Mik’s “ Dipterologische
Untersuchungen ” (Vienna, 1878) tivelve new genera of Dulicliopo-
didae are introduced, with the following preamble : “ Occupied
with a revision of the Dolichopodidae I take occasion to introduce
several new genera, which I make public in the following pages,
before the publication of the other results of my revision.” Mik
has never published this promised “ Revision,” and thus his genera
remained incompletely defined.

In the Verh. zool.-hot. Gesellsch., Wien, 1881, p. 320-327, the genus
Clinocera , which, upon Mik’s own showing (ibid., p. 320), con¬
tained at that time only forty palaearctic species, was subdivided

176

BKAUER AND MIK

by him into nine genera. Among the alleged reasons for this un¬
necessary subdivision he has the following very questionable one:
“ If I do not introduce these genera, sooner or later somebody else
will ! ” As an apology for the incompleteness of his definitions he
promises a monograph of the genus, which he has in preparation
(ibid., on p. 320 twice) ; a promise which, like the one mentioned
above, he never kept.

In my paper on Paracrocera Mik (Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1896, p. 323)
I have shown that this genus, as well as Symplectomorpha Alik and
Alloeoneurus Mik, are superfluous subdivisions, which merely tend to
defeat the mnemonic purpose of classification. Olbiosyrphus Alik
( Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1897, p. 66), it seems to me, belongs to the same
category. By the way, in the “ Namenregister ” of the same volume,
p. vii, in consequence of a lapsus calami the genus is called Olbio-
gaster, a generic name introduced by me for a new form of Rhy-
phus (Biol. Centr.-Amer. Diptera, p. 20).

The other opportunity for introducing new names (generic as
well as specific), and an occasion for the display of his mihVs , was
afforded to Mik by the nomina bis lecta of other authors. Such
opportunities were rather numerous, and it would be useless to re¬
produce all of them here. In the volume of the Wiener Ent. Zeit.,
1886, alone, I find Thamnodromia Mik (Empidae') proposed for
Phyllodromia Zett., p.278; Lepidostola Mik (Syrphidae) for Lepi-
domyia Loew, p. 279; Monoclona Mik (Mycetophilidae) for Stae-
geria v. d. Wulp, p. 102; Allocotocera Mik (Mycetophilidae') for
Eurycera Dziedz., 1887, p. 269; Microtricha Mik (Tachinidae) for
Stylomyia v. d. Wulp, etc.

Specific names, when found to be bis lecta, were, “ pour dorer la
pilule,” dedicated, by Mik, according to the received custom, to the
original author: Beckeri mild (ibid., 1894, p. 166), Eggeri mild
(ibid., 1897, p. 66), v. cl. Wulpii mild (ibid., 1899, p. 143), Willis-
tonii mihi (on the same page), Sharpii mild, Stroblii mild (ibid.,
1900, p. 148), etc. At the same time Mik, with a remarkable but
quite characteristic inconsistency, praises Dr. C. Ivdrtesz “for hav¬
ing refrained from introducing new names for nomina bis lecta ”
(“zu loben,dass er sich enthalten hat nom. b. 1. umzutaufen,” ibid.,
1900, p. 224)!

BRAUER AXD MIK

177

Most of these changes of names, as I have shown, have appeared
in the Wiener Ent. Zeit. And yet, in the very same year when
this periodical was started, Mik had expressed ( Wiener Ent. Zeit .,

1882, p. 208) an opinion about the treatment of nomina bis lecta
which was in direct opposition to his practice in regard to them.
He said : “ It is unnecessary nowadays so anxiously to conform to
the rule of nomenclature which requires such a change of names ;
the consistent application of it would involve frequent changes, and
enable the first comer to introduce them with a ‘ Xomenclator Zoo-
logicus ’ in hand.” A year later ( Verh. zool.-bot. Gesellscb ., Wien,

1883, p. 184) Mik, intolerant as he was towards others, develops still
further this rule of nomenclatorial toleration : “ As Robineau-Des-
voidy’s generic name Eloceria is grammatically incorrect, I propose
the amended name Helocera for it . . . without caring to inquire
whether such a name is preoccupied for some other animal or not :
a genus of Diptera of that name does not exist.” In an article,
“ Nomenclatorische Fehltritte ” (Xomenclatorial Errors), published
five years later in the Verh. zool.-bot. G-esellsch., Wien, June 6, 1888
(Sitzungsberichte'), Alik expressed the same view: “A time will
certainly come when the same [generic] name will be allowed to be
used several times, as long as it is not used in the same order of the
system.”

Mik is confusing here a rational toleration with an explicit per¬
mission. If such a broad rule as he advocates were adopted, any
entomologist, when looking for a new generic name, would be per¬
mitted to select for his genus a well-sounding name in another
order of insects. The inconvenience which would result from the
large number of nomina bis lecta thus introduced into the different
orders of insects is obvious ! At present, with the yearly publica¬
tion of entomological reports, containing alphabetical lists of new
genera, any author, with a little diligence, can reduce to a mini¬
mum the risk of hitting upon a generic nomen bis lectum. But the
truth is that instances are frequent of a total neglect of such pre¬
cautions, even on the part of entomologists most conveniently situ¬
ated for availing themselve^of them.

Another instance of Mik's excess of self-assertion (as I have
mildly called it) is found in the paragraph entitled, “ Eurymyia

12

178

BRAUER AND MIK

Bigot,” in the Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1897, p. 115. Mik amends this
name into “ Eurinomyia mild ( nom . nov.fi” He acknowledges at
the same time that Schiner, thirty-three years before, in his “Cata-
logns Systematicus,” etc., 1864, p. 108, had proposed the name
Anasimyia for the same generic concept. It would have been
proper for Mik to retain this name, but he rejected it, under the
futile pretence “ that it was a mere Catalogue name ” (“ ein blosser
Catalogsname ”), which is by no means the case ! Schiner (“ Fauna
Austriaca,” Vol. I, p. 338, 1862) had isolated the two species Helo-
philus transfugus Linn, and H. lineatus F. at the very beginning of
his analytical table of this genus by the character : “ Lower half of
the face projecting, cone-shaped, and pointed in profile.” Two
years later in his “ Catalogue of Austrian Diptera,” which contained
nothing but names and no definitions, Schiner had a perfect right
to propose a name for a generic concept which he had defined before ,
the more so as he referred to it the two typical species connected
with it in his previous publication. As to Bigot, when he received
from a friend a single female specimen of Helophilus lineatus F.,
captured north of Paris, he did not even recognize this species in it,
but, being struck by the projection of its face, not unlike that of the
genus Rhingia , he immediately described it as Eurymyia rhingioides ,
gen. et sp. nov. It is in this blunder of Bigot that Alik found
another opportunity for a mild of his own (compare above), and for
discarding under a false pretence the generic name Anasimyia
proposed long ago by Schiner ! 1

Mik’s general criticisms of the publications of other authors
abound in instances of arbitrariness and egotism. On one side,
popularity is courted by profuse compliments and “ captationes
benevolentiae ” towards authors not deserving them ; on the other
side, most unreserved criticisms, and sometimes in very bad taste,
are showered upon deserving entomologists who had the misfortune
to disagree with Mik. In such cases Mik often displays the prevail¬
ing defects of his style, diffuseness and verbosity. A redundant
and unjust example of this ( Verh . zool.-bot. Gesellsch., Wien, 1886,
p. 479-483) is directed against Dr. Dziedzicki’s method of utilizing

1 Mr. G. H. Verrall’s account of this case in his “ Syrphidae,” London, 1901, p. 524,
is incorrect and requires emendation.

BRATJER AND MIK

179

characters founded upon the structure of the forceps ( [hypopygium )
of Mycetophilidae for generic and specific descriptions. An unde¬
served praise is bestowed on Bigot’s very insignificant paper on
Acantliomeridae (Ann. Soc. Ent. France , 1882, p. 453-460) : “This
paper offers a clear account of this remarkable family of Diptera.”
A slight criticism which Mik ventured against Bigot ( Wiener Ent.
Zeit., 1883, p. 65) is immediately redeemed by praise: “A zealous
and meritorious dipterologist, whom I highly esteem, and intend to
prove by having the honor to dedicate to him an interesting species
of the genus Dolichopus." But after Bigot’s death we find Mik
describing him (ibid., 1897, p. 170) as being “in systematic ques¬
tions very badly informed ” (“ dass er gerade in der Systematic selir
schlecht orientiert war”).

My attempt to introduce a psychological and moral element into
entomological criticism found no favor with Mik. However, he
expressed his opinion with great caution and in a rather disguised
manner. In a notice of his (Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1898, p. 71) about
Abb6 Ivieffer’s attack upon Mr. Riibsaamen, Mik introduced a pas¬
sage that evidently refers to a paper of mine, published a short time
before, concerning the two editions of Loew’s first Essay (“ Erst-
lingsarbeit ”) on the Diptera of Posen (Osten Sacken, in the Berl.
Ent. Zeit., 1896, p. 279-284 ; 153, 1896). The comparison of these
two editions convinced me that Loew had been prompted to publish
the second (almost identical) edition in Oken’s Isis, in conse¬
quence of a feeling of rivalry towards Zeller, whose admirable first
paper on Diptera had just appeared in the same periodical. That
some of the expressions in Mik’s passage, which I reproduce
here, are covert allusions to my paper nobody will contest who ex¬
amines the matter with some attention. This quotation I must
give in the original German, as its obscurity, amounting to inepti¬
tude, prevents me from making an adequate translation : —

“Bei dieser Gelegenheit wollen wir nicht unerwahnt lassen, dass in
neuester Zeit in der entomologischen Wissenschaft Streitschriften fast rein
personlicher Natur in bedenklicher Zahl zu Tage treten. Man bemerkt
darin leider eine fdrmliche Sittenrichterei, die sich herausnimmt, dera Cha¬
racter der Personen nahe zu treten ! Ja selbst die Todten werden nicht ge-
schont ! Der aufmerksame Leser der entomologischen Literatur wird mir

180

TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS OF ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY

recht geben, auch wenn ich keinen Namen nenne. Wir fragen aber, soli denu
so etwas die Sadie der Wissenschaft niitzen?”

In his notices about my papers Mik more than once fell into
error in consequence of his very limited knowledge of the English
language (compare Wiener Ent. Zeit ., 1884, p. 27, about Apiocera ;
ibid., 1897, p. 32, about Curupira and Snowia , etc.). Such slips
will be mentioned at their proper places in this “ Record.” One of
them especially deserves attention, Mile’s mistake about the mean¬
ing of the term piracy , in the sense of plagiarism. He took it in
the literal sense, and resented that I had called him a buccaneer
(“ Seerauber ”). My explanation and his reply to it (Wiener Ent.
Zeit., 1897, p. 212) may be considered as a slight contribution to
the “gaiety of nations” (156, 1897).

Mik’s numerous publications are open to many other criticisms ;
but, as my intention was to describe Mik’s manner rather than his
matter, what I have given here will be sufficient for my purpose.
It will belong to others to pass a final judgment upon the merit of
Mik’s work on the Diptera of central Europe. That is not my
specialty. In this notice I have attempted to prove that Mik, with
the advantages which he had, might have done much more for dip-
terology if it had not been for the peculiarities of his character.
Loew was therefore right in his estimate of Mik, which I have re¬
produced above (p. 174).

XXIII NOTICE ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PUBLICATION
OF TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS (1830, 1863) OF ROBINEAU-
DESVOIDY

R o b i n e a u-D e s v o i d y was twenty-seven years old when he
presented to the Academy of Sciences of Paris his voluminous
manuscript of the “ Myodaires,” that had cost him several
years of labor. The competent members of this institution were
at once struck with the great merit of the work, and with the new
method of study which it introduced. A committee was appointed,
which consisted of the greatest zoological authorities of that time:
Latreille (1762-1833), then aged sixty-five, and at the height of his

TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS OF ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY

181

reputation for liis work on the Invertebrata ; C. Dumeril (1774—
1860), a celebrated zoologist and comparative anatomist, who,
among other works, had published in 1801 an “ Exposition
d'une methode naturelle pour l’etude de la classification des
Insectes”; Blainville (H. M. Ducrotay de) (1777-1850), an able
zoologist, student of Cuvier, and especially devoted to classifica¬
tion. After a careful study of the manuscript by these distin¬
guished men, Blainville was entrusted with the task of drawing
up a “ Report,” which, signed by the members of the committee
and countersigned by Baron Cuvier, Perpetual Secretary of the
Academy, Commander of the Royal Order of the Legion of Honor,
was read in the Academy on October 2, 1826, printed in pamphlet
form (24 pages in 8vo), and distributed among the members
of the Academy.

This Report, although referred to by Rob.-Desvoidy himself in
his Preface (1830), seems to have attracted very little attention on
the part of dipterologists. It appeared at a time when Meigen had
but recently published his fourth (1824) and fifth (1826) vol¬
umes, containing the Calyptrata ; when Macquart was issuing the
early parts of his “ Dipteres du Nord” (1823-1826), containing
the Nemocera and a portion of the Orthorrhapha Brachycera;
and when Fallen had completed his whole work with its last
instalment (“ Supplementum Dipt. Sueciae,” 1826). In England,
neither Holiday nor Curtis 1 had appeared on the stage. In Sweden,
Zetterstedt had begun his publications, but they as yet contained
nothing on Diptera.

I consider this Report as a very important document for the
history of dipterology of that time, and for this reason I shall give
a detailed summary of its contents, with abundant verbatim
extracts.

The Report begins with a circumstantial account of the
history of dipterology, describing its gradual progress since
Linnd’s “ Systema Naturae” of 1748, explaining the different
methods and nomenclatures adopted by Fabricius , Latreille, and
Dumeril , and the temporary confusion which resulted from the

1 John Curtis’s earliest issue of his “ British Entomology” is, however, dated
1823.

132

TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS OF ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY

want of agreement between them. Meigen's work and his merit
in using characters borrowed from the venation are mentioned. It
is shown how Rob.-Desvoidy, having brought together more spe¬
cies of Muscidae than all the earlier authors taken together,
found it necessary to study this group much more in detail
(“ d’fitudier ce grand genre d'une maniere bien plus minutieuse ”),
and here the new characters, introduced by Rob.-Desvoidy, are
enumerated and critically appreciated.

(Report, p. 6.) Attention is called to the nomenclature adopted
by Rob.-Desvoidy for the different parts of the head and face ; it
is noticed at the same time that these terms do not quite agree
with those adopted by earlier authors. The structure of the
antennae had been studied by Rob.-Desvoidy in great detail,
and it is acknowledged that he, with perfect reason (“ avec juste
raison”), considered the arista as the prolongation of the
antenna ( vide Myodaires, p. 11) and not as a mere bristle.

(Report, p. 7.) The attention given by Rob.-Desvoidy to the
study of the squamae was something almost new (here the
Report has a footnote saying that Latreille had already made some
use of them). Rob.-Desvoidy has introduced the very happy gen¬
eralization that the development of the squamae is more or less
in harmony with the habits of the flies ; that the most active, the
largest, the most colored, and the high-flying (“ liaut vol ”)
Muscidae have the largest squamae, while these organs are
small, or rudimentary, in those species which remain in the
vicinity of their birthplace.

Rob.-Desvoidy, with much reason, had also observed that the
coloration of flies shows a certain relation with their surroundings ;
that those living in the open air, in the rays of the sun, have more
brilliant colors than the “ timid species living under the protection
of rotten mushrooms.” The general structure of the body, that of
the abdomen and of the ovipositor, are brought into relation with
the life-habits, etc.

In a word, the Report shows that the study of Diptera in life
is the leading idea of Rob.-Desvoidy’s classification.

Rob.-Desvoidy understood very well “ that everything in an
organization holds together, and that the necessity of a fact ” (by

TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS OF ROBIN EAU-DESVOIDY

183

which he probably meant a condition of life) “ leads directly to
the necessity of organs that produce that same fact” (“ainsi,
tout se tient dans l’organisation, et la n6cessit(i d’un fait conduit
directement aux ndcessitds d'organes qui produisent ce meme
fait,” Myodaires, p. 23).

The next part of the Report (p. 8-20) contains a complete
enumeration of the numerous divisions and subdivisions introduced
by Rob.-Desvoicly. Not only were names given by him to the
families and tribes, but each name is followed by a short
characterization of the group, including not only characters and
life-habits, but the number of genera which the families or tribes
contain. That close attention was paid by the members of the
commission to this distribution is proved by the criticisms which
they appended to it, and which will be reproduced below.

From this enumeration we learn that the original plan of the
distribution, as it was developed in Rob.-Desvoidy’s manuscript,
was somewhat more extensive than that which appeared later in
the volume on the Myodaires (1830). Even in this volume
the distribution indicated on p. 20 is not entirely carried out,
and the families eight, Micromyidae , and nine, Muciphoreae, are
not found farther on in the letter-press. (The words of Rob.-
Desvoidy in the Ann. Soc.. Ent. France, 1844, p. 5, evidently
refer to this omission: “Les deux premiers tiers des Myodaires
se trouvent imprimis en 1830 ; le dernier reste encore inedit.”)
In the Report, the subdivisions (tribus) of the Micromyidae
(six tribes) and Muciphoreae (four tribes) are enumerated with
short diagnoses. Moreover, the Report mentions a tenth family,
which does not appear at all in the 1830 volume, viz., the Cephale-
myidae , which was to contain the Pipunculidae , and of which
it is said “their habits are entirely unknown, and various characters
make one suppose that they do not belong to the Myodaires.”
This was a presentiment which has been fully justified by further
experience.

The rest of the Report contains criticisms and conclusions which
I deem interesting enough for a verbatim reproduction : —

“Such is the exact analysis, too short, its length notwithstanding, of the
great work which Mr. Rob.-Desvoicly has submitted to the judgment of the

184

TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS OF ROBINEAU-DESY OIDY

Academy, a work almost entirely finished (‘ redige presque enticement ’),
and accompanied by five synopses (‘tableaux’) of all the species
Diptera of the family Muscidae observed and collected by him within
the small area of the Departement of the Yonne.

“ The total number of species is about eighteen hundred, of which four¬
teen hundred are new, or newly defined : seventeen or eighteen exotic
genera are added.

“ Your Commissioners have attentively examined the work of Mr. Rob.-
Desvoidy, without, however, having been able to extend their examination
to all the genera, and a fortiori to all the species, which, being desiccated,
and for the most part very small, could not be analyzed.

“ The number of new species has appeared to them in reality very con¬
siderable. It is possible, however, that Mr. Rob.-Desvoidy, not having yet
formed a sufficiently positive notion of the concept of a species, which is
fully established only when it is well characterized by appreciable differ¬
ences in the genital organs, has considered as distinct species mere casual
varieties in size, villosity, and intensity of coloring.

“Anyhow, in taking account of all these species, and in distributing
them according to different points of view, Mr. Rob.-Desvoidy has been
necessarily led to group them around the principal species, and that
brought about the establishment of families and tribes that appear to
us to a certain extent natural, although sometimes not quite distinctly
characterized.

“ Distinctive characters, derived from the basal joints of the antennae,
from the joints of the arista, from the glabrousness or villosity of the un¬
jointed portion of the latter, have been used for the introduction of genera
which appear to us too numerous, the more so as they seem but in rare
cases to be supported by characters derived from tire wings and from the
structure of the proboscis, organs that, unfortunately, have been somewhat
neglected in the work of Mr. Rob.-Desvoidy. In examining, for instance,
a certain number of genera which constitute the first family, the Calyp-
trata, we have become convinced that they are merely based upon but
very minute differences in the proportion between the second and the third
joints of the antennae. In some cases even the genus does not show the
character belonging to the tribe.

“ It was undoubtedly a happy thought to introduce a connection between
the characters of the classification of insects and their mode of life and
habits, and thus to form families founded upon the food in the larval
state, as well as in that of the imago. But with this method there is
a danger of going too far, and of adopting genera and species the only dis¬
tinction of which would depend upon the plants, or upon the medium in
which they live, and not upon their organization.

TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS OF ROBIN EAU-DESV OID Y

185

“ In general, the whole systematic arrangement of the work seems to us
to suffer from a too great multiplicity of subdivisions of the first, of the
second, and even of the third order. The number of genera, for instance,
is too great, so that, on the average, each of them hardly contains three
species. We can conceive that Mr. Rob.-Desvoidy required such a scaf¬
folding for disposing of so many and of so closely connected species, but
he might, at least, have omitted a part of them.

“ The family, the tribal, and even the generic names are well formed,
short, and euphonic. A few of them only must be rejected on the ground
of preoccupation in other families. Much less satisfactory are the names
derived from men more or less celebrated in natural sciences, and especially
in entomology, because they are not always brief and easy to pronounce.
At the same time, they may sometimes cause the slight inconvenience of
connecting the name of a distinguished man with some disagreeable
epithet.

“Your Commissioners, nevertheless, do not consider the wTork of Mr.
Rob.-Desvoidy, in the shape in which it was brought before them, as
finished : —

“ 1st. Because he does not seem to have sufficiently limited his subject
by distinctly defining it, and that he could only do by giving a preliminary
survey (‘tableau’) of all the Diptera.

“2d. Because he has not prefixed to his work a somewhat detailed ter¬
minology, which requirement is of an absolute (‘ rigoureuse ’) necessity,
although difficult to accomplish. He would, in such a case, have to take
into account the two pairs of inferior palpi which he admits in the genera
Phorophylla and Phyto. Indeed, he would have perceived that all the
Diptera have these same organs, only less distinct, and that they con¬
stitute the lips (‘ levres ’) of the proboscis, the larger size of these four
palpi being probably due to the prolonged extremities of each lip. lie
would have likewise seen that the study of the wing-veins, which he has
neglected, and which have been used by Meigen to great advantage, might
have tended to confirm several of his principal divisions. He would perhaps
have been also led to use characters borrowed from the proboscis, which,
when well analyzed, seem to afford good tests of affinity, although of a
difficult application (‘ d’un difficile emploi ’).

“ 3d. Because he has not established a synonymy with recent authors who
have been specially occupied with the same subject, such as Fallen, and,
above all, Meigen ; a gap difficult to fill, no doubt, a matter perhaps appar¬
ently of little importance, but which we strongly invite him to attend to, in
the first place in a spirit of justice, and next in order not to embarrass
science again by new names imposed upon the same species and the
same subdivisions. Considering that Meigen, in taking in the work of

186

TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS OF EOBINEAU-DESVOIDY

Panzer , of Fallen , of Wiedemann, and his own, described about three hun¬
dred species from Germany that are not included in the ‘ Systema Antlia-
torum ’ of Fabricius, it is impossible not to believe that several of Mr.
Rob.-Desvoidy’s species will turn out to be synonyms.

“4th. Because Mr. Rob.-Desvoidy has not, by any means, visited and
studied all the collections in Paris, a task which it is very important that
he should continue to pursue (for he has already begun it), in order that
his work, founded on the broad basis of complete and positive observations
made from life upon our French species, may be extended by means of a
well-grounded analogy (‘par une analogie bien conduite ’) to all the species
collected in different parts of the world, and may later serve for philosophic
conclusions on the geographical distribution, and for a final determination
of the species (‘ a la determination definitive des especes ’). We are even
able to give the assurance that Mr. Rob.-Desvoidy, who must necessarily
have had in mind a similar work, is actively occupied with it, and that at
present the number of species of flies, including those observed in the
Parisian collections, reaches beyond three thousand.

“■Your Commissioners are also of the opinion that, whatever final form
(‘ redaction *) he gives to his work, Mr. Rob.-Desvoidy will do well to adapt
his style to the subject,, and to have, in a publication of this kind, no other
ambition than that of clearness and simplicity of description, and to restrain
himself to a strict analysis of facts, instead of offering generalizations which,
in some cases, have appeared to them a little pretentious; an important
defect, evidently to be attributed, however, to the youth of the author, and
therefore excusable.

“ These slight criticisms notwithstanding, which may rather be considered
as hints towards future improvement, we estimate the work of Mr. Rob.-
Desvoidy to be of a very great intrinsic value (‘ d’une tres grande valeur
intrinseque ’), because it contains observations and distinctive characters of
four or five times more species of flies (mouches) than were known to
the most recent authors ; it also bears witness to a mental quality and ten¬
dency, a perseverance and a patience of observation unfortunately very rare
nowadays in zoology, where it seems to be much easier to indulge in gen¬
eral considerations, before even knowing a small number of specialties.
The happy combination which Mr. Rob.-Desvoidy has succeeded in bring¬
ing about between his botanical and entomological knowledge — we mean
to say between plants and insects — has given to his work a character of
novelty which he intends to apply to other departments of entomology
susceptible of it.

“Your Commissioners, in consequence, recommend you to accept the
work of Mr. Rob.-Desvoidy for publication in the serial of the ‘Savants
etrangers,’ a distinction that, in their opinion, it fully deserves. They

TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS OF ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY

187

would even suggest that this publication should be facilitated and accel¬
erated by all the means at your disposal. Otherwise, it might happen
that, not finding a publisher who would incur the expense, the author
would feel that five or six years of diligent work had been lost for his
reputation, and, discouraged by such an unfortunate beginning, would
suspend his entomological labors; a result which, in our estimation, would
be a real loss for science as well as for the glory of France, the zoology of
which is still very little advanced (‘ encore si peu avancee ’).”

This Report, with its genuine appreciation of the merit of a
young man and a beginner, expressed by masters in science in the
most considerate and encouraging terms, does, it seems to me, the
greatest honor to the enlightened spirit which prevailed at that
time in the Academy of Sciences in Paris. It was about this
very time that Goethe, in his retraite of Weimar, with marked
disregard of politics and other questions which absorbed con¬
temporaries, used to follow attentively the discussions of Cuvier
and Geoffroy St. Hilaire on the highest problems of biology.1
And this enlightened point of view stands in most striking con¬
trast with the short-sightedness of the specialists in dipterology,
contemporaries of Rob.-Desvoidy, who attempted to ignore him and
to suppress his work.

The first chapter of Rob.-Desvoidy’s “ Essai sur les Myodaires ”
(1830) begins with this characteristic Introduction : —

“ The Royal Academy of Sciences, in its meeting of October 2, 1826, ac¬
cepted for publication my ‘Essai sur les Myodaires du canton de Saint-
Sauveur, Dept, de l’Yonne.’ In order to render myself worthy of this honor
I felt bound to revise the whole of my work, to establish it on a broader
basis (‘ Tassurer sur de plus larges bases ’) and to avail myself of the criti¬
cisms of the committee on the Report. I had foreseen, what actually
happened, that I was working upon a subject that was endless. Xatural-

1 Many passages in J. P. Eckermann’s “ Gesprache mit Goethe ” refer to
science and literature in France between 1827-1831, especially in connection with the
periodical “ Le Globe,” of which Goethe was a constant reader. They are enumerated
in the alphabetical Index of the latest edition of Eckermann’s work (1885), under the
vocable “ Globe.” The particular passage about the discussions between Geoffroy St.
Hilaire and Cuvier will be found in Vol. II, p. 239 (December, 1831), of that edition.
Mr. Demogeot, in his “ Hist.de la litterature fran^aise,” 10th edit., 1869, p. 621-624,
gives an account of the importance of “Le Globe ” as the organ of the best intellects
in France at that time, and adds some very interesting references to the opinions
expressed by Goethe in his “ Colloquies ” with Eckermann.

188

TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS OF ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY

ists will therefore not expect perfection from me, the ideal of which, the
more one studies, appears more distant. To grasp the number of specimens
I describe it must be understood that I had the principal collections of
Paris at my disposal. I owe to Messrs. A. Le Peletier de Saint- Fargeau,
Audinet-Serville, and Blondel the knowledge of a large number of Parisian
species, some of them with details concerning their habits. Mr. Carcel has
communicated to me the result of his excursions in the ancient provinces of
the Dauphine and Anjou. From Mr. G. Cuvier I obtained the obliging
permission to describe the exotic species sent to the ‘ Jardin du Roi ’ by the
travellers of this Institution. Finally, the richest and most interesting
collection of Myodaires which I know of, and which for many years
M. Latreille has been pleased to increase, the collection of Mr. le comte
Dejean, has been opened to me with the courtesy and the particular atten¬
tions by which this celebrated entomologist is so honorably known. On all
sides I met with willingness to be useful to science. But, before entering
upon my subject, I beg Messrs. Latreille and de Blainville to accept the
public testimony of my gratitude for the zeal, the advice, and the wise
criticism with which their well-known ability has never ceased to encourage
my work.”

The above-quoted passage proves that, in consequence of the
advice which Rob.-Desvoidy had received in the Report, lie had in¬
troduced some changes in his manuscript. In his first chapter he
gives a definition of the Myodaires 1 (p. 45), and explains the
terminology he had been using for the different parts of the head,
the antennae, the proboscis, the venation, and the squamae. lie
says that the peculiar nomenclature of the veins and cells of the
wings which he adopted was recommended to him by M. de Blain¬
ville. He attempted to harmonize his work with the works of
Fallen and Meigen. He did not succeed in getting access to the
work of Fallen; but he was acquainted with his classification.
About Meigen he says (p. 18) : “ Mr. Meigen, in Germany, pub¬
lished a very estimable work on the European Diptera. One who
has studied these insects with as much care as this able naturalist

1 I do not understand why Rob.-Desvoidy describes the amphipneustic charac¬
ter of the larvae of the Muscidae in terms which seem rather to refer to peri-
pneustic larvae (“ larves h stigmates respiratoire situes le long du corps”;
Myodaires, p. 4). The same terms are reproduced in Latin on the following page 5.
They are repeated in the “ Histoire Naturelle ” (1863), p. 66. The latter passage occurs
in the paragrapli which is merely copied from the Myodaires, and which I con¬
sider as an interpolation of the Editors. (Compare below.)

TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS OF ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY

189

will understand how much labor his genera Tachina and An-
thomyia must have cost him. Without allowing myself the
slightest criticism of a work so laborious and containing so much
of new material, I will merely observe that I have too often fol¬
lowed a different course, and therefore cannot be accused of having
worked according to his methods. Mr. Meigen excels in the art of
describing Diptera, nevertheless it is certain that the possibility
of establishing a perfect synonymy, based upon his characters and
descriptions, may perhaps not exist (‘ n’existe peut-etre pas ’). I
merely describe species which I have seen and studied. This author
mentions many that I do not know, and about which, for fear of
error, I prefer to remain silent.”

Rob.-Desvoidy was not the only one to criticize Meigen’s descrip¬
tions ; there is a very instructive passage in Loew’s work on the
Asilidae ( Linnaea Entomoloyica , Yol. Ill, 1848, p. 410-413),
about the difficulties he and Zeller met with in attempting to recog¬
nize species of Asilidae and Bombyliidae in Meigen’s descriptions.
Even specimens labelled in Meigen’s handwriting are not implicitly
to be trusted, because he sometimes did not recognize his own
species. This is not intended as a reproach to Meigen, but merely
as an expression of the difficulty of the subject.

As Rob.-Desvoidy’s Myodaires is the principal work which,
hitherto, has been in use among dipterologists, and as his reputation
has been principally grounded upon this volume, I have thought
it worth while, in the preceding pages, to publish the result of my
investigations of the circumstances under which it was prepared, so
far as the sources were accessible to me. But Rob.-Desvoidy con¬
tinued his indefatigable researches upon Diptera for twenty-five
years longer, up to his death ; as he said himself : “ Je crois que je
mourrai en loupant un diptere” (“Histoire Xaturelle des Dipteres,”
1863, p. 33). He left an almost finished manuscript, which he con¬
sidered fit for publication (ibid. , p. 44), and which was published
six years after his death. 1 1 is own opinion concerning the relation
of these two works is expressed in the following terms : —

“Thus I shall enjoy the happiness of having been twice the father of the
same work. The ‘ Essai sur les Myodaires’ (1830) will recall my first
flights (‘ elancements ’) in the field of science, my warm aspirations towards

190

TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS OF ROBIN EAU-DESVOIDY

the study of nature ; it will afford a proof of the difficulties and the inex¬
perience of my first steps; it will bear witness to a young, vigorous breath,
which did not recoil before the amplitude, or the breadth, of any turn of
sentence (‘d’un souffle jeune et vigoureux, qui ne reculait devant l’ampleur
ni la largeur d’aucune periode’).1 But this last book, the manifest
(‘ irrecusable ’) progeny of a mature age, will show more moderation in
its progress; it will replace brilliancy by solidity, it will contain more of
zoology than of natural history. It will please less, but it will be more
profitable, because it will show a better understanding of the conditions
exacted by Nature from those who are eager to apprehend her. One has a
difficult task to accomplish if one has had the misfortune to hit upon
a zoological family of the extent and of the infinite ramifications of which
he had, at the outset, no adequate conception ! To be able to mark off
both ends of one’s career by the prosecution and the reproduction of the
same work is an advantage that but few naturalists have enjoyed. It is
the result of a whole life consecrated to the same study. It bears witness
to a rare spirit of patience, of perseverance, and of abnegation, conditions
indispensable for such an undertaking. I can therefore affirm, with some
pride, that I have resolutely faced all obstacles which I met in the
accomplishment of my work.”

This effusion of feeling continues for some pages in the same
strain, but I have given enough of it to prove the great importance
Rob.-Desvoidy attached to the progress achieved in his second
work. As I have never paid special attention to the Muscidae ,
I am incompetent to pronounce any opinion upon the reality and
upon the extent of this progress. Professor Brauer, in his “ Be-
merkungen zu Osten-Sacken's Rejoinder,” etc. ( Berl . Ent. Zeit .,
1894, p. 238, at bottom) has this passage: “We have tried to un¬
derstand bis [Rob.-Desvoidy’s] descriptions as much as possible.
No other dipterologist has made such an extensive use of Robineau’s
posthumous work as we have, and it seems to us that our work
will l >e of great use for the understanding of Robineau's writings.”
This may be so, but I have not found in MM. Brauer and Bergen-
stamm’s volumes any general statement about the progress achieved
by Rob.-Desvoidy between his two principal works ; and such a
statement, in this case, was essential in order to prove that Rob.-
Desvoidy had told the truth about his progress.

1 I am translating the peculiar style of Rob.-Desvoidy as faithfully as I can.

TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS OF ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY

191

Rob.-Desvoidy’s work of 1863 was not quite finished when,
after his death, it came into the hands of his editors. They have
introduced into it some interpolations and changes in order to fill
up the blanks they found in it. It belongs to the critic to discern
such additions. In my paper, “ On the Terms Calypteratae,”
etc. (in the Berl. Bnt. Zeit., 1896, p. 329 and p. 335-336), I
have shown that the term Acalypterata, introduced in the
posthumous work on page 81, was an interpolation of the
editors, and that it has never been used by Rob.-Desvoidy in
his works. In examining the same volume since, I found that
the generalities concerning the “ Entomobies ” (p. 86 to p. 91,

down to line 9 from top) are word for word reproduced from
the “ Myodaires ” (1830). What follows upon them (lines
10 and 11) is apparently also an interpolation for the purpose
of introducing the statement about synonymy in the footnote.
The passage reads, “ It is unnecessary to add that I have given
all possible care to the exactitude of the synonymy.” And the
ominous footnote, appended to this passage, reads thus: “We
shall take care that the gaps left in the manuscript on the sub¬
ject of synonymy, and which the author’s death alone prevented
him from filling, are filled in a manner entirely satisfactory to
entomologists. Therefore all the descriptions of species without
synonymy should be considered as new, and as not having been
mentioned anywhere before.” It is evident to me that the whole
interval between pages 86 and 91 was a blank, left unfilled by
Rob.-Desvoidy, and that the editors filled it by simply intro¬
ducing the corresponding passage from the earlier edition. Rob.-
Desvoidy would certainly not have reproduced, word for word, the
same generalities after thirty years of renewed studies ! Rob.-
Desvoidy’s text begins again on page 91, with line 12: “ L’historique
des Myodaires,” etc., and his picturesque style will be easily recog¬
nized. Here he gives vent to his wrath against Meigen , who,
having been influenced by Macquart , had entirely ignored Rob.-
Desvoidy’s existence. I quote this short but pregnant passage: —
“Nothing is more pitiable than this elaboration [of Meigen’s
Tachinae, in Yol. VII, 1835], which had no reason to exist
(‘ qui n’avait pas sa raison d’etre’). But it was necessary, above

192

AERIAL AND TERRESTRIAL DIPTERA

all, to prevent my name from appearing in science ! Special orders
had been received from Paris never to quote me ! ”

My critical review of Rob.-Desvoidy’s two principal publica¬
tions contains data which, I believe, have not been published before,
and which nevertheless are indispensable for the proper under¬
standing of these works. The pointing out. of the interpolations
of the editors of the posthumous work of 18G3 will save some
trouble to conscientious workers of the future. My detailed
study of Rob.-Desvoidy’s Prefaces has convinced me that this
author does not deserve the reproach often urged against him
of having neglected the work of his predecessors, Fallen and
Meigen. He had done what he could to study and assimilate
their publications, especially Meigen’ s, but he is not to be blamed
if he failed to achieve the impossible.

At the end of my paper, “ Two Critical Remarks,” etc. ( Berl . Ent. Zeit., 1893,
p. I have given a biographical notice of Rob.-Desvoidy. The last

paragraph of this paper, beginning with the words, “ Rob.-Desvoidy makes on
me the impression,” etc., must be cancelled, because the disparaging remark on
his character which it contains is unfounded, and was based upon my, at that time,
rather superficial knowledge of his works.

XXIY AERIAL AND TERRESTRIAL DIPTERA

An attempt to define the adaptive structural modifications produced
by the two life-habits of Diptera

A first attempt at a definition of the adaptive characters peculiar
to the two life-habits of Diptera was made by me in my publica¬
tions on Chaetotaxy (“ Nocli ein Paar Worte iiber Chaetotaxie,” etc.,
Wiener Ent. Zeit ., 1882, p. 91 ; 85, 1882; “An Essay on Compara¬
tive Chaetotaxy,” etc., Trans. Ent. Soc., London, 1884, p. 499-502 ;
102, 1884). T he principal application, however, of this contrast,
as a new aid towards the classification of Diptera, I introduced
later, in my “Preliminary Notice of a Subdivision of the Suborder
Orthorrhapha Brachycera on Chaetotactic Principles ” (Berl. Ent.
Zeit., 1896, p. 365-373 ; 158, 1897).

The contrast between the two types of aerial and of terrestrial life-
habit exists among all the groups of Diptera, although it is more

AERIAL AND TERRESTRIAL DIPTERA 193

marked among the Brachycera , where the corresponding two types
of flies are distinguished by the presence or absence of holoptic
heads and of macrochaetae. As in the Nemocera vera these two
characters are wanting, the contrast between the two types is less
evident, nevertheless (as I am going to show in the course of this
paper), it exists ; but, in the absence of holoptic heads and of
macrochaetae, the contrast is characterized by modifications in the
structure of other organs, such as antennae, wings, legs, etc.

The modifications of the different organs in accordance with the
requirements of one or the other life-habit are merely adaptive
and, although they may be very prevalent in a group, and char¬
acteristic of it, they are not very deep-seated, and may change or
disappear among those of the members of the same group the life-
habit of which is aberrant from the prevailing type. The phylo¬
genetic characters, in such cases, are left untouched, and the
aberrant members of the group remain in the same family, or
superfamily, in spite of their sometimes quite conspicuous adaptive
characters. Such adaptive characters may therefore be considered
as tools in the battle of life , tools which are easily modified, when
the conditions of the struggle are altered, although the phylo¬
genetic characters remain the same.

Adaptive structui’es are useful either for orientation (such
are the adaptations of the eyes, of the antennae, or of the macro¬
chaetae) or for action (the adaptations of the wings or legs). In
some cases, organs of orientation may be developed in such a
manner as to be also useful for action ; for instance, in certain
Nemocera long antennae may be used, like the long legs, for regu¬
lating the flight.

The males of atrial Diptera, owing to their holoptic heads, are
better able to scan, during high flight, a wide horizon. Aerial
Diptera show a minimum of macrochaetae, sometimes none what¬
ever, because the requirements of orientation are less complex
for aerial than for terrestrial life. Holopticism is usually con¬
nected with a wing-structure that is especially adapted for a more
perfect control of the motions ; and this faculty of control, in such
cases, is not confined to the holoptic male, but exists in both sexes.

Such a wing-structure enables the male to hang, poising in the air,

13

194

AERIAL AND TERRESTRIAL DIPTERA

and the female (although dichoptic) to hover over a flower, even
to touch it, without alighting. The legs of aerial Diptera are
principally fitted for alighting, and much less for any other pur¬
poses ; they are, for this reason, less strong and less specialized
than those of the terrestrial type.

Terrestrial Diptera show the opposite characters. The heads in
both sexes are generally dichoptic. The macrochaetae are much
more numerous and stronger. The flight is more headlong, less
subject to control. The legs are fitted for running, grasping, dig¬
ging, and other exercises, and are for this reason stronger and
provided with bristles, hairs, and other useful and sometimes orna¬
mental appendages.

Little has been done as yet to establish a causal connection
between the different modes of flight of Diptera and the mechanism
of their wings. I have attempted to pave the way for such re¬
searches in my two papers, “ On the Terms Tegula, Antitegula,
Squama, and Alula ” (in the Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1896, p. 285-288),
and “ On the Terms Calypteratae and Acalypteratae, Calypta and
Calyptra, as they have been used in Dipterology” (in the same
serial, 1896, p. 285-288). But these papers of mine were merely a
beginning of such an investigation, and especially a contribution
to the nomenclature and literature of the subject.

On the relation between the venation and the mode of flight, a
happy hint has been thrown out by Zeller, more than sixty years
ago, in the following passage : “ The mode of flight of the true
Bombglius is not unlike that of Sgrphus. They hover for some
time in the same place, jerk off suddenly, and then gradually sink,
and thus approach the flowers they intend to visit.” Such a con¬
trol of the power of flight is secured in both of these genera by
a similar structure of their venation ; the fourth and fifth veins,
just before reaching the margin of the wing, form an angle, the
distal sections of which run parallel to the margin, and end in the
preceding vein. A similar parallelism of veins with the margin
secures the same control of the motions of the Mgdaidae and the
Nemestrinidae. But the mechanics of many other peculiar modes
of flight of certain Diptera still remain unexplained. On what
structures, for instance, of wings or veins, depends the singular to

AERIAL AND TERRESTRIAL DIPTERA

195

and fro pendulum-motion of the Homalomyiae in our rooms ? Or
the perpendicular up and down motions of Rhyphus , II y bos, and
Phora ? In this respect there is much room for investigation
yet.

Having done with the generalizations on my subject, I proceed
now with their application in the different groups and families of
Diptera.

I begin my exposition with the Brachycera.

In each of the superfamilies of the Brachycera , one of the above-
defined types is prevalent. But at the same time, as I said above,
each of the superfamilies contains exceptional forms, showing a
distinct tendency towards the life-habits of the opposite tj-pe. I
repeal, that in such cases the modification of structure runs paral¬
lel with a change of life-habit : a Dipteron, although belonging to
a prevailingly aerial superfamily, assumes under such a change of
circumstances some of the characters of terrestrial Diptera, and
vice versa.

The most numerous and thriving family among the Tromoptera ,
the Bombyliidae , are principally aerial ; they have holoptic heads in
the male, well-developed wings, a remarkably regulated flight,
comparatively weak legs, and a moderate development of almost
imperceptible macrochaetae. But among the Bombyliidae there is
the heavy Toxophora , a pedestrian among aerial forms, with com¬
paratively short wings, but stout legs, and showing an unusual
development of stout macrochaetae on the thorax, and even a pair
of ocellar bristles on the head. In complete contrast with Toxo¬
phora is another Bombylid, Systropus , aerial to the core, slender in
shape, entirely bare of hairs and bristles, but, as if in compensation,
holoptic (I may say) with a vengeance, because the eyes offer the
rather rare instance of a complete contact of the eyes in both
sexes. (Compare my paper 158, 1897, “ Preliminary Notice,” etc.,
Berl. Ent. Zeit ., p. 368-369, for details about Bombyliidae and
the exceptional position, among the Tromoptera , of the small and
specialized families of Nemestrinidae and Cyrtidae.')

The superfamily Energopoda are essentially pedestrian, and hence
the species are usually dichoptic in both sexes ; they have abun¬
dant macrochaetae and strong, variously specialized legs. But

196

AERIAL AND TERRESTRIAL DIPTERA

among them the Empidae, although the number of their macro-
chaetae, the development and the remarkable specialization of their
legs, and other characters, prove them to be properly pedestrian,
have aerial habits, which bring along with them the frequent con¬
tact of the eyes in the males and, in some genera (as Hybos , Syne-
ches, Cyrtoma'), even liolopticism in both sexes. Among the
Empidae themselves, however, exceptions in the opposite, terres¬
trial, sense occur ( Hemerodromia , Clinocera, Tacky dr omia'), and in
these genera dichopticism reappears in both sexes. Hilara, in this
respect, is singular; although aerial in its habits, it is dichoptic in
both sexes.

Of the other families of the Energopoda, the Asilidae, so far as
I know, are dichoptic without exception, and the Dolicliopodidae
likewise, with rare exceptions ( ' Diaphorus ).

The third superfamily of the Orthorrhapha Brachycera, the
Eremochaeta, afford a peculiar interest, as they are entirely want¬
ing in macrochaetae. This want seems to be amply compensated
by the great development of a variety of structures of the anten¬
nae. No other superfamily offers anything equal to it, and this
peculiarity I have characterized as morphological restlessness ( Berl .
Eat, Zeit., 1892, p. 427 ; 130, 1892).

Another peculiarity of the Eremochaeta is, that they contain a
considerable number of archaic forms. Like the Marsupialia
among the Vertebrata, the Eremochaeta seem to represent a collec¬
tion of survivals of bygone zoological horizons. And this general¬
ization is confirmed by the fact that genera of this superfamily
are more abundant in countries the whole fauna of which is of a
more ancient origin than the European fauna (North America,
Chili, Australia).

For a detailed characterization of the Eremochaeta, I refer to
my above-quoted paper (130, 1892). At present I shall confine
myself to some generalizations tending to show that, although the
great prevalence of liolopticism and the total absence of macro¬
chaetae make of the Eremochaeta aerial Diptera, the terrestrial and
pedestrian tendencies which occur among some of them are indi¬
cated by the very same characters that distinguish terrestrial and
pedestrian forms in other superfamilies : the reappearance of dichop-

AERIAL AND TERRESTRIAL DIPTERA

197

tic heads in the male sex and the specialization of the legs. I
begin with the family Stratiomyiidae.

In the section Beridina we have the European Actina and the
Australian Exaireta, both with dichoptic eyes in the male sex ;
while the closely allied genera ( Beris , Allognosta , etc.) have holop-
tic males. In Bxaireta the pedestrian tendency is distinctly indi¬
cated by the development of the legs.

In the section Sargina , the genus Histiodroma , described by
Schiner (“ Novara,” p. 68, tab. II, f. 8), has a broad front in both
sexes. He places it in a separate section, Raphiocerina. Not hav¬
ing had an opportunity to examine specimens, I cannot judge
whether the dichoptic male of Histiodroma shows, besides this, any
other pedestrian tendency.

In the section Hermetina , the genus Hermetia shows a broad
front in both sexes, while its Australian close relative Massicyta
Walk. ( Lagenosoma Brauer, “ Notacantha,” p. 81), according to
Brauer, Walker had only females, has an holoptic male, which
proves again that holopticism in this case, as in many others, is
not a deep-seated character.

In the section Stratiomyina ( Odontomyina Loew) I am not aware
of any exception to the rule of male holopticism. In some genera
only ( Buparhyphus , Lasiopa') the eyes of the male are subcontiguous.

Among the PacJiygastrina subcontiguous eyes likewise occur;
but I find only Chauna Loew, from Cuba, which is described as
having, in both sexes, “ a broad, smooth front.”

In the family Tabanidae I have not discovered any exception to
the rule of holopticism ; it may occur nevertheless, as many genera
and species are described in the female sex only ; and as, in some
generic descriptions, the holopticism of the male is not distinctly
mentioned, and probably taken for self-understood.

It is in the predaceous family Leptidae that a number of genera
assume, in their general appearance, as well as in the details of
their organization (in a dichoptic head in both sexes ; in the struc¬
ture of eyes and antennae ; in tlieir slender body and legs), a
striking resemblance to the Asilidae , mimicking them in such a
degree that several of them were actually placed in that family by
otherwise experienced entomologists. The Leptid Pheneus was

198

AERIAL AND TERRESTRIAL DIPTERA

described by Walker as an Asilid, and Westwood, who drew the
figure (in the “ Insecta Saundersiana ”), evidently shared this error.
Lampromyia Macq., a Leptid, was redescribed by Perris as a new
genus of Asilidae, Apogon. The genus Leptynoma Westwood
(from the Cape), described by him as an Asilid, is either the same
as, or closely allied to, the Leptid Lampromyia Macq.

I have compared the LJremochaeta with the Marsupialia among the
Vertebrates. The Marsupialia contain animals foreshadowing in
their general appearance more recent forms. The above-mentioned
group of genera of Leptidae , mimicking Asilidae, seem to represent
an analogous case, and a further study of the remarkable super¬
family Eremochaeta may disclose still other resemblances of the
same kind.

Another very interesting instance of the juxtaposition in the same
group of two opposite types of life-habit is likewise found among
the Leptidae , in the genera Coenomyia and Xylophagus. Although
the imagos show important differences in the head, antennae, scu-
tellum, venation, etc., the comparison of the larvae proves that the
two genera are very closely related, and do not belong to two dif¬
ferent families, as was formerly believed (by Schiner, “ Fauna,” Vol.
I, p. 26, and by myself, in “ Catalogue of North American Diptera,”
1878; Loew placed them in the same family, but with a doubt,
“Monographs North American Diptera,” Vol. I, p. 16, 1862).
Coenomyia is holoptic in the male, Xylophagus distinctly dichoptic in
both sexes, and, in agreement with these characters, Coenomyia has
more aerial habits and flies better than the pedestrian Xylophagus
(Schiner, loc. cit., says of the latter : “ finden sicli an Baumstam-
men . . . wo sie munter auf und ab rennen”). In Europe,
there are no transitions between these two genera, but in North
America, with its older fauna, the interval between Xylophagus
and Coenomyia is filled up by the genus Arthropeas Loew, and
several allied genera.

The case of Xylophagus and Coenomyia reminds me of the two species of the
coniferous tree Sequoia in California, S. sempervirens and S. gigantea, the former
occurring along the seashore, the other high up in the mountains. Prof. Oswald
Heer of Zurich, the great student of fossil plants, enumerated twenty-four fossil
Sequoiae, occurring in Tertiary and Cretaceous strata and spread over Europe, Asia,
and North America, as far north as Spitzbergen (78° of latitude), and as far south as

AERIAL AND TERRESTRIAL DIPTERA

199

Spezia and Sinigaglia in Italy. These fossil species represent two extreme types,
the interval between which was filled up by numerous transitional forms of the
Tertiary period. The two Californian species, the only living remains of the
genus, are representative forms of those two extreme types (“ es sind zwei sehr
seliarf geschiedene Typen,” says Heer),all the intervening genera and species in
the three parts of the world being extinct.

Bold as the juxtaposition may seem of these two cases of the animal and the
vegetable kingdom, it may nevertheless serve as a well-founded illustration of the
working of the law of evolution. (About Sequoia my source of information is
0. Heer, “ Ueber die Sequoien,” Yortrag in der bot. Section d. Schweiz. Nat.
Gesellsch., reproduced in the periodical Gartenjlora. My separate has no date,
but it cannot be later than 1879.)

The Mydaidae, an ancestral superfamily among the Orthor-
rhapha Brachycera , seem to hold an intermediate position between
the aerial and pedestrian types. They are dichoptic in both sexes,
and most of them have well-developed legs; on the other hand
they have macrochaetae, and their venation, with the curved veins
running parallel to the hind margin, indicates a superior power of
regulating their flight. My experience with living Mydaidae is
confined to Leptomy das panther inns Gerst., which I have watched in
1876 about Lone Mountain, in San F rancisco. As far as I remember,
its flight was rather slow, steady, and well-regulated, not far above
the soil, and not unlike that of a Bombylius.

The two types of life-habit exercise the same influence on the
organization of the Cyclorrhapha Athericera , as they do on that of
the Orthorrhaplia Brachycera. Representatives of the former sub¬
order are subject to similar modifications of structure in con¬
sequence of their adaptation to external influences.

The Syrphidae are pre-eminently aerial and holoptic, showing a
minimum of macrochaetae, and possessing a remarkable power of
regulating their flight. At the other end of the series of Cyclor¬
rhapha , the so-called Acalyptrata are decidedly terrestrial and pedes¬
trian, with dichoptic heads in both sexes, more or less numerous
and characteristic macrochaetae, a diminished power of flight, etc.
Between the two extremes of Syrphidae and Acalyptrata are the
Calyptrata or Muscidae , which show a prevalent terrestrial and
pedestrian character in the abundance of macrochaetae, in the di¬
choptic heads in both sexes, and in the headlong character of their
flight. But among the Calyptrata , the group of Anthomyiidae

200

AERIAL AND TERRESTRIAL DIPTERA

plays a part not unlike that of the Empidae among the Energo-
poda : although terrestrial in their general appearance and their
leading characters, they display an aerial tendency in their power of
regulated flight, necessary for their aerial dances, and in the struc¬
ture of the head in the male, which I have called p>$eudoholoptic
( Berl . Ent. Zeit., 1896, p. 867) in order to distinguish them from
genuine lioloptic heads.

To return to the aerial Syrphidae , there are forms among them
which show a pedestrian tendency in the use and development of
their legs. Such are Xylotae running upon leaves with their stout
hind legs, and showing a minimum of contact of the eyes in the
male. Syritta , a relative of Xylota, is seen rummaging with its
strong hind legs among stamens of flowers ; it also hovers around
them, but is not a high flier ; it does not scan a wide horizon, and
therefore is not provided with an lioloptic head. Other Syrphidae
exhibit the same pedestrian and terrestrial tendency in the devel¬
opment of comparatively numerous macrochaetae. Conspicuous
among these is the genus Hammer schmidtia (allied to Brachyopa')
which has the aspect of a pedestrian fly and resembles an Htdomyza ;
the macrochaetae, for a Syrpliid, are unusually abundant, and the
contact of the eyes in the male is reduced to a minimum.

Male holopticism, although very common among Syrphidae , is,
in this family (as well as in others), not a very deep-seated char¬
acter. Some phylogenetically closely allied genera differ from each
other in regard to holopticism. The connection between this char¬
acter and the mode of flight is, in some cases, not easy to explain.
W e can readily understand the correlation between the head of the
heavy Microdon , dichoptic in both sexes, and its short wings ; both
characters are indicative of a Dipteron that is not a high flier. But
it is more difficult to interpret a priori why most Helophili (includ¬
ing the genus Bolichogyna Macq. from Chili), why Ascia, Sphe-
gina , Psarus , Pelecoeera, etc., are likewise dichoptic in both sexes.
Observation in life alone will solve such questions.

The Nemocera vera are essentially aerial. But as lioloptic heads
do not occur among them, the influence exercised by their life-habit
on their organization does not appear in the structure of the head,
but in that of other organs, and especially of the antennae, the

AERIAL AND TERRESTRIAL DIPTERA

201

principal organ of orientation in this superfamily. As if in com¬
pensation for their small heads and eyes, the Nemocera vera show a
large development of the antennae. It is in them, and not in the
conformation of the eyes, that the cephalic secondary sexual char¬
acter finds its expression (130. 1892, p. 434). We have seen that,
among the Diptera Brachycera , the holoptic head of the male is
generally an index of the power of regulating flight. Among the
Nemocera vera , in the absence of holoptic heads, it is the long anten¬
nae and the long legs that regulate flight. The antennae, in such
cases, besides their function as organs of orientation, make them¬
selves useful as organs of action (for this distinction, compare
above, p. 193). All the dancing and swarming Nemocera vera
have either long or otherwise much specialized antennae, and, at
the same time, long legs ( Culicidae , Chironomidae , Tipulidae ).

Although Culicidae are prevailingly aerial, their relatives, the
Psychodidae , with their shorter and stouter body and comparatively
short legs and wings, have the habits of pedestrian Diptera. And,
indeed, I have observed small Psycliodae running round in a circle
(on a glass-pane) with a remarkable rapidity.

Among the Chironomidae , which are generally aerial, some Cera-
topogons possess decidedly terrestrial characters in their compara¬
tively short and strong legs, their femora armed with spines or
bristles, and their tibiae and tarsi displaying a variety of adaptive
structures.

Among the Nemocera vera , the majority of which, as we have
seen, are aerial, the Mycetophilidae are remarkable for their terres¬
trial and pedestrian habits. Rob.-Desvoidy, in his picturesque
style, described them well as “ the timid species living under the pro¬
tection of rotten mushrooms” (Rob.-Desvoidy, “ Myodaires,” 1830,
Preface). Their antennae have no verticils, and are of a simple
structure in comparison with that of the antennae of other Nemo¬
cera vera; their legs are stouter and stronger. Nevertheless,
among these terrestrial Mycetophilidae there are genera which pre¬
serve the generally aerial character of the superfamily Nemocera
vera ; Macrocera and Bolitophila , with their long legs, their long,
filiform antennae, and their slender, elongate bodies, have the
appearance of Limnobiae and share their aerial habits.

202

AERIAL AND TERRESTRIAL DIPTERA

The terrestrial MycetopJiilidae and the aerial Cecidomyiidae offer
in their general appearance a complete contrast, although pliylo-
genetically they are rather closely allied.

Among the aerial family Tipulidae, the apterous Chionea, with
its stunted antennae and stout legs, affords a very instructive
example of a terrestrial and pedestrian Tipulid.

The Nemocera anomala , which I consider as ancestral forms, are
often provided with holoptic heads in the male (differing in this
from the Nemocera vera , where such heads never occur). This
seems to prove that holopticism among Diptera is a character of
very old standing. The males of Bibio are holoptic and aerial.
Plecia (including Penthetria) is more terrestrial in its habits, and
therefore shows a minimum of holopticism in the male (sometimes
distinctly separated eyes), and, in agreement with this character,
the wings are often reduced in size. It has been noticed that
among fossil remains different forms of Pleciae abound, while a
true fossil Bibio has not been discovered yet. This may be due to
the aerial habits of the male Bibio , which saved it from sub¬
mersion.

In the Simuliidae the male is holoptic and aerial ; the female
dichoptic and terrestrial, and shows a peculiar development and
activity of the legs (130, 1892, p. 452, footnote). This is a singular
instance of a disseverance of sexes. The males swarm and dance
high in the air; the females occur in myriads on riversides, and
torment men, cattle, and horses. It is not astonishing at all that
Sclionbauer (1795), author of a monograph of the celebrated
“ Columbatcz ” Simuliuw i, never met with a male of this species, and
mistook some females for it. Skuse’s statement, that in Australia
Simuliae seem to be “ rare and local ” (130, 1892, p. 454), requires
confirmation. Prof. L. C. Miall (“Aquatic Insects,” p. 188, 1895)
says just the contrary : “ Simulium have greatly annoyed certain
Australian exploring expeditions.”

Bhyphus has an holoptic male, but in his American relatives,
Lobogaster Philippi and Olbiogaster O. S., the male is dichoptic.
As we have no data about the life-habits of the last two genera,
we do not know how far this difference of structure corresponds
to a difference of life-habit.

AERIAL AND TERRESTRIAL DIPTERA 203

The Blepliaroceridae, although pre-eminently aerial, offer the
peculiarity of having the eyes of a nearly identical structure in
both sexes. That is, in different genera, the eyes in both sexes are
either holoptic or dichoptic. We do not know yet whether this
difference is connected with a difference in the behavior of these
genera. The eyes of this family offer some other exceptional and
unexplained structures (including bisection).

The Orphnephilidae, provided with holoptic heads in both sexes,
have the characters of aerial Piptera, although they do not fly very
high. Their flight is rather slow, and appears to be well under
their control, as becomes holoptic Piptera.

To conclude : The study of the two types of life-habit of
Piptera, in connection with corresponding modifications in their
structure, of which I have given a very imperfect outline, I con¬
sider as a necessary complement of the study of C'haetotaxy as a
method of description. Investigations in that direction will, at the
same time, open new avenues for the inquiry into the evolution of
Piptera during geological ages. A hint of this kind is introduced
by me in this chapter in the paragraph on Xylopluigus and
Coenomyia, two apparently very different types, the phylogenetic
relationship of which is, however, explained by their evolutional
history.

In my “ Introduction ” (p. 22) I expressed regret that I had
“never had the good fortune to reside for any sufficient length of
time in a place in which, or within a reasonable distance of which,
there was a large dipterological collection,” containing forms of all
continents ; and it is in preparing the present chapter, replete as it
is with generalizations, that I feel how much I have lost by such an
isolation, and how much more satisfactory my work would have
been if I had been able to illustrate it by numerous examples of
exotic forms.

Before concluding this chapter I deem it useful to state dis¬
tinctly that, although a mere dilettante, I firmly adhere to that
group of naturalists who believe all phenomena of life and organic
growth to be susceptible of being described, but not explained. For
this reason in my “ Introduction ” (p. 15) I compared the evolution
of organic forms with the “ Growth of the tree of Life,” because

204

AERIAL AND TERRESTRIAL DIPTERA.

comparison is a mode of description , and not an explanation. I said :
“ What is Life ? On this question I adhere, at least in the present
state of our knowledge, to the humble avowal of Prof. Du Bois-
Reymond : ‘ Ignorabimus ’ ! ”

The distinguished French thinker Rivarol (1754-1801), in his
“ Maximes et Pens^es,” has formulated the same idea in the follow¬
ing sentence : —

“Des qu’on a nomine la nature, il n’y a plus probleme, mais
mystere ; il lie s’agit plus d’expliquer, mais d’exposer.”

CHARLES ROBERT v. d. OSTEN SACKEN

AT THE AGE OF 74 (iN AUGUST 1902).

RECORD OF MY LIFE WORK
IN ENTOMOLOGY.

PART THIRD.

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS

FROM 1854 TO 1904.

FIRST PERIOD.

WORK IN ST. PETERSBURG.

1854—1850.

1854.

1. Dipterologisclies aus St. Petersburg.

Stett. Ent. Z. 1854, p. 203 — 204, w. a. plate.

1. Proposal for a new classification of the Tipulidae brevipalpi, based upon
a detailed study of their male genital organs. These ideas were carried out by
me in my later publications of 1859, 1868 etc.

2. Detached remarks on other Limnobina, especially about a remarkable
species discovered by me near St. Petersburg, which Loew described under the
name of L. imperialis n. sp. but which, ultimately, turned out to he the Tipula
nnnulata Linne. Its congener, L. caesarea 0. S., I discovered and described
at the same time.

1857.

2. Ueber Tipula annulata Linn.

Stett. Ent. Z. 1857, p. 90—91.

During a visit to London in 1856, I found in the original collection of
Linne, preserved in the Linnean Society (Burlington House) that the species
which Loew had described as Limnobia imperialis n. sp. (compare above sub
No. 1, 1854) was identical with the long-misunderstood Tipula annulata Linne.

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

206

In 18G8 I established the new genus Trochobola for T. annulata and L. cae-
saren 0. S. Trochobola is a very peculiar form, with a wide distribution over
Europe, North America, Australia and Tasmania, all the species showing the
same pattern of ocellate spots on the wings (compare Mon. N. A. Diptera IV,
p. 97—98).

3. (In Russian.) Otcherk sovremennago sostojanija poznanija
entomologitcheskoi fanny okrestnostei St. Peterburga.

In the “Jurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Proswestchenija”, St. Peters¬
burg, 1857.

{Translation): Review of the present condition of our knowledge of the
Entomological Fauna of the environs of St. Petersburg, 1857.

NB. The separate copies bear the date of 1858, and contain 166 pages.
This paper was rather carelessly printed in St. Petersburg after my departure
for the United States, and contains innumerable misprints.

{Biographical.) Of the beginnings of my entomological career I have
given an account in the “Introduction”, p. 1 — 2.

In the early spring of 1856, I was appointed Secretary of the Russian
Legation at Washington and landed in New York about the middle of June.
Of my peregrinations during the two months intervening between these
two dates I have given an account in the same Introduction, p. 2 — 3. (Con¬
tinued on p. 207.)

SECOND PERIOD.

WORK IN THE UNITED STATES.

1856—1877.

1858.

4. Catalogue of the described Diptera of North America.

Smithsonian Miscell. Collections, Vol. Ill, Jan. 1858; pp. NX and 192,
in 8°. — Appendix , ibid. Oct. 1859 (three pages).

NB. This is a mere compilatory Catalogue which, twenty years later, was
replaced by the critical Catalogue of 1878 (compare below, No. 61, 1878).

1859..

5. Ueber die St. Petersburger Insektenfauna.

Wien, Entom. Monatsschr. 1859, p. 50 — 56.

NB. A short notice of the contents of my No. 3, 1857, which had been
published in Russian.

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

207

6. Notes furnished by me for Dr. Le Conte’s edition of “The
complete writings of Thomas Sag on the Entomology of North
America". New York, 1859.

NB. Dr. Le Conte, in his Preface, makes mention of these Notes on Dip-
tera, as well as of those by Mr. Philip Uhler on Orthoptera, Hcmiptera and
Neuroptera.

7. New genera and species of North American Tipulidae with
short palpi, with an attempt at a new classification of the
tribe.

Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. August 1859, p. 197 — 255, w. two plates.

NB. A short notice of this publication will be found in the Stett. Ent. Z.
1860, p. 87—90. _

( Biographical .) In the summer of 1859 I made a journey to Europe,
and visited the principal Museum-collections in different cities. The winter
1859 — 1860 I spent in St. Petersburg, and returned to the United States in
the spring of 1860. (Continued on p. 209.)

1860.

8. Appendix to the paper entitled : New genera ancl species of
N. A. Tipulidae w. short palpi etc. (see above, No. 7, 1859).

Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. Jan. 1S60, p. 15 — 17.

1861.

9. Description of nine N. Am. Limnobiaceae.

Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. Sept. 1861, p. 287—292.

10. Entomologische Notizen.

Stett. Ent. Z. 1861, p. 51—52; continued 1862, p. 127 — 128.

11. Ueber die Gallen und andere durch Insekten hervorge-
braehte Pflanzendeformationen in Nord-Amerika.

Stett. Ent. Z. 1861, p. 405 — 423; continued 1S62, p. 80.

12. (Without title.) Communication concerning the sexes of
Cynips.

Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. July 1861; ibid. Sept. 1862, p. 249.

13. On the Cynipidae of the N. Am. Oaks and their Galls.

Proc. Entom. Soc. Philad. I, 1861, p. 47 — 72.

208

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

1862.

14. Descriptions of some larvae of N. Am. Coleoptera.

Proc. Entom. Soc. Philad. I, 1862, p. 105 — 130; w. a plate.

(A short Additional Notice, ibidem IV, 1865, p. VIII — IX, refers to the
luminous larvae of different hinds, described and figured in Vol. I, p. 125 — 130.
These larvae proved afterwards to belong to different genera of Lampyridae;
see below, No. 29, 1868.)

15. Notes on the Diptera in the third edition of T. W. Harris’s
11 Treatise on some of the Insects injurious to Vegetation
Boston, 1862.

16. Characters of the larvae of Mycetophilidae.

Proc. Entom. Soc. Philad. I, 1862, p. 151 — 162, with a plate.

NB. I have published a reprint of this paper, with some additions in Hei¬
delberg, in 1886. Comp. No. 113, 1886 of this List.

17. (Without title.) Notice on a new character, separating the
Tipulidae brevipalpi from the longipalpi, and introduction of
a third division of the Tipulidae of the same importance
with the two others : the Ptychopterina.

This appeared in a footnote to Loew’s: “Sketch of the Systematic
arrangement of Diptera” etc. in the Monographs of N. A. Diptera,
I, p. 11—13, 1862.

18. On the N. Am. Cecidomyidae.

In Loew and 0. Sacken’s Monographs of N. Am. Diptera , 1862, I,
p. 173 — 205, with a plate and woodcuts.

19. Additions and Corrections to the paper entitled : “On
the Cynipidae ” etc. (see above, No. 13, 1861).

Proc. Entom. Soc. Philad. I, 1862, p. 241—253.

1863.

20. Lasioptera reared from a gall on the golden-rod.

Proc. Entom. Soc. Philad. I, 1863, p. 368—370.

21. Contributions to the natural history of the Cynipidae of the
United States and of their galls. Article third (comp. No. 19,
1862).

Proc. Entom. Soc. Philad. II, 1863, p. 33 — 49.

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

209

1864.

22. On the Diptera of the Amber Fauna.

Sillitnan’s American Journal of Science and Art, Yol. XXXVII, 1864,
p. 306—324.

NB. This is a translation of Loew’s paper on the same subject, read at
the meeting of the German Scientific Association at Konigsberg (Prussia) iu
1860. To this translation is added a “List of the Diptera common to Europe
and N. America” prepared by Loew for this translation.

23. Description of several new North American Ctenophorae.

Proc. Entom. Soc. Philad. Ill, 1864, p. 45 — 50.

24. Ueber den wahrscheinlichen Dimorphismus der Cynipiden-
Weibchen.

Stett. Ent. Z. 1864, p. 409—413.

NB. Brief account of the hypothesis of B. D. Walsh, expounded by him
in the Proc. Entom. Soc. Philad. March 1864 (but which, in the end, proved
fallacious).

1865.

25. Contribution to the Nat. Hist, of the Cynipidae of the United
States and of their Galls. Article fourth (comp, above, No. 21,
1863).

Proc. Entom. Soc. Philad. IV, 1865, p. 331 — 380.

26. Description of some new Genera and Species of North Am.
Limnobina.

Proc. Entom. Soc. Philad. IV, 1865, p. 224 — 242.

(Biographical.) After the Smithsonian conflagration, in Jan. 1865, which
destroyed the manuscript of my “Monogr. of the Tipulidae brevipalpi ” (comp,
this “Record”, p. 73), I made in summer a journey to Europe, visited many
Museums and dipterologists, and thus collected very useful materials for re¬
writing the lost manuscript. At the end of June, I visited Loew in Meseritz.
In Turin, I made the acquaintance of Professor Luigi Bellardi. Born in
Genoa in 1818, he became Professor of Natural History in Turin, and died
there in September 1889. His principal work was in palaeontology , but
dipterology was his favorite pastime. A diligent collector of diptera and a
charming man! His “Diptera Mexicana” was his only publication on this
Order.

In the same year 1865 I returned to the United States late in autumn.
The cholera having broken out in Paris about that time, the steamer, to
the great annoyance of the passengers, was detained in quarantine for three
days in the bay of New York (continued on p. 210).

210

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

1866.

27. Two new North American Cecidomyiae.

Proc. Entom. Soc. Philad. VI, 1866, p. 219 — 220.

1867.

( Biographical .) I spent the winter of 1867 — 68 in rewriting the manu¬
script of Vol. IV of the Monographs etc. which had been buined (compare
above, No. 26, 1865). The new manuscript was delivered to the Smithsonian
Institution in May 1868, and went through the press during the summer and
autumn of the same year. The title-page is dated January 1869; see below,
No. 30 (1869). (Continued on this page, below.)

1868.

28. Description of a new species of Culicidae ( Aedes sapphirinus
n. sp. — Middle States).

Trans. Amer. Entom. Soc. II, 1868, p. 47 — 48.

29. (Without title.) Note on certain luminous larvae.

Canad. Entomologist, I, p. 38 (only half a page).

NB. Larvae of Phengodes (compare above, No. 14, 1862).

1869.

30. On the North American Tipididae. Part first: Tipulidae
brevipalpi.

Loew and Osten Sacken’s “Monographs of N. Am. Diptera, Vol. IV,
Washington, Jan. 1869. Pages XI and 345; four plates.

NB. This is the reproduction of the volume the manuscript of which was
consumed in the Smithsonian conflagration of 1865. The at first intended Part II,
about Tipididae longipalpi was given up, because Loew had undertaken the
task of describing a large number of species of this group in his Centuries
(1861 — 1872). Nevertheless later, during my residence in Europe, I published
the paper: “Studies on Tipulidae, Part I, Review of the published Genera of
the Tipulidae longipalpi ”. See below, No. 115, 1886.

31. Report on North American Dipterology in 1868.

Prepared for A. S. Packard’s: “Record of American Entomology
for 1868”, p. 18—25.

32. Biological notes on Diptera (galls on Solidago).

Trans. Amer. Entom. Soc. II, 1869, p. 299 — 305.

( Biographical .) In the spring of 1870 (April 23) I again sailed for Europe
and landed in Bremen (May 5). 1 made a tour of visits to several scientilic men

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

211

and institutions: Prof. Rosenhauer in Erlangen, Professors Siebold and
Gemminger in Munich (June 3 — 9), R. Schiuer and Dr. Frauenfeld
in Vienna (June 9 — 15), the Museum in Berlin (August 10—12). As the
Franco-German war had broken out at that time, I felt it my duty to re¬
turn to my post of Consul-General in New York, which I reached Sept. 6
1870. The news brought by the pilot at our arrival was that of the sur¬
render of Sedan! (Continued on p. 212.)

1870.

33. On the transformations of Simulinm.

Amer. Entomologist and Botanist, II, p.227 — 231; 1870, w. woodcuts.
NB. A popular exposition of the subject, with but a few original observations.

34. Biological notes on Diptera. Article second (comp. No. 32,

1869) .

Trans. Amer. Entom. Soc. Ill, p. 51 — 54; March 1870.

35. Contributions to the Natural History of the Cynipidae of the
United States. Article fifth; compare No. 25, 1865.

Trans. Amer. Entom. Soc. Ill, p. 54 — 64; 1870.

36. Report on American Dipterology in 1869.

Prepared for A. S. Packard’s “Record” etc. for 1869, p. 30-37
(compare No. 31, 1869).

37. Letter to the Trustees of the American Museum of Natural
History in New York, dated Jan. 21 1870.

Printed in the First Report of this Museum.

NB. In this letter I informed the Trustees of the gift I had made for the
projected Museum of my general collection of North American insects of all
orders (excepting Lepidoptera), which I had formed during my residence in the
United States. This collection consisted of about 3800 specimens, determined
by the best authorities in each Order. My principal aim in making this gift
was thus to form a nucleus of a collection of native insects always open to the
public ; a collection in which any schoolboy might determine at sight the more
common species. I believe that this my intention was actually carried out in
the Museum soon after its erection, but I have not heard of it since. The Diptera
were represented by the more common species oidy, my principal collection of
this Order having been deposited in the Museum of Zoology in Cambridge, Mass.

1871.

38. Biological notes on Diptera. Article third (compare No. 34,

1870) .

Trans. Amer. Entom. Soc. Ill, p. 345 — 347 (Dec. 1871).

212

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

1871 (August) to 1873 (September)
Years of travel.

(Biographical.) In 1871 I hail resigned my post of Consul General of Russia
in New York, remaining, nevertheless, iiyJiplomatic service (en disponibilite ).
In this capacity I still had some official duties to perform, which kept me
travelling for nearly two years. During these years of locomotion I had many
opportunities of visiting Museums and entomologists, as well as meeting my
relatives, scatteied in different localities. I shall now give a brief account
of these peregrinations.

After my resignation, I sailed for Europe (August 5 1871), and, by
way of Bremen, came to Berlin, and then to Baden-Baden (the residence,
at that time of my mother); then to Switzerland, where I travelled in diffe¬
rent directions through the whole month of September and a part of October,
returning finally to Baden-Baden. In November, by way of Frankfurt o/M.
and Leipzig, I paid a visit to Loew in Guben (Novbr. 3 — 5), after that, I
visited Warsaw (Novbr. 6 — 10) and went to St. Petersburg, where I stayed
for nearly two months. I left it at end of December, anil came to Berlin on
the 1st of January 1872. After depositing there an official parcel (with
which I had been entrusted by the Foreign Office in St. Petersburg) I con¬
tinued my journey on the same day towards Baden-Baden, where I spent a
week with my mother. Then by way of Paris, I reached Brest, embarked
in the “l’ereire” and lauded in New York (Febr. 4) after a cold and stormy
passage. After spending five mouths in the United States, dividing my time
between New York and Cambridge, Mass., I sailed from New York (July 11)
by the Hamburg steamer “Silesia”, and arrived in Berlin (July 24). Here
my official peregrinations came to an end, and I was henceforth free to
travel for my own pleasure. I visited successively Denmark (from Kiel,
over the Islands Funen and Zealand to Copenhagen, July 26 — August 2);
then, by way or Malmo, Lund1, Gothenburg, Trolhattan, Wenersborg to
Stockholm (Aug. 7 — 11) and Upsala (Aug. 12); from Stockholm by steamer
to Ltibeck (Aug. 16), by Berlin (Aug. 23 — 26), Guben (with Loew, August
23 — 35), Munich, Salzburg, to Gastein, where I spent three weeks (Aug. 31
— Sept. 21), taking the water-cure, much needed by me after all my exer¬
tions. Much restored by Gastein, I made up my mind to spend the winter
in Italy. I began with the delightful Riva, on the Lago di Garda (Sept. 27
1872) and remained in Italy till the spring of 1873, visiting successively,
and making more or less prolonged residences at Verona, Venice, Padua, Bo¬
logna, Ravenna, Lucca, Perugia, Pisa, Florence, Parma, Rome, Naples, Mes¬
sina, Taormina, Catanea, Syracuse, Palermo, Genoa, Turin, Pavia etc. Be-

1 In Lund, I did myself the honor to pay a visit to Zetterstedt, but
did not see him; he excused himself on account of his old age (at that time 87!),
but invited me to examine his collection. I did not, however, accept this offer,
as it would have detained me too long. At Upsala, I paid a visit to the vener¬
able mycologist Fries, at that time 78, a very amiable old man.

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

213

sides sight-seeing, and enjoying the most pleasant society which I was fortu¬
nate to meet almost everywhere, I did not neglect to visit my scientific cor¬
respondents and to make new acquaintances: Ron dan i in Parma, Bel-
lardi in Turin, the zoologist Professor Henry Giglioli in Florence, Ur.
R. Gestro in Genoa, Prof. Achille Costa in Naples etc. By way of
Milan, May 26 1873, I left Italy in the direction of Bozen, and proceeded
through Klagenfurth, Buda-Pesth, Vienna (3 — 15 of June), Ischl, Salzburg,
Augsburg, Lindau, to Switzerland (June 26), where I remained, visiting the
principal localities, through the whole of July. From Geneva (Aug. 2) I
went to Paris (Aug. 3 — 10) and then by London (Aug. 10—22) to Liverpool,
where I embarked once more for New York, landed there on Sept. 3, 1S73,
and settled in Cambridge, Mass, for the next four years, devoting myself to the
study of North American Diptera. Professor Louis Agassiz, who greeted
me most cordially, was complaining already at that time of the trouble in his
head which carried him off in December. During these years of travel, I
did not publish anything. In the meantime (in August 1873) I had defini¬
tively retired from^ip!oniatic|jhgy service.

Although the personal details I have thus given offer but little scientific
interest, I have compiled them, not without some trouble, from different
sources, and put them on record here for future reference.

In December 1873, the long-expected third volume of the Monographs
of North American Diptera appeared in Washington. The story of the long
delay of this publication has been told by me in this “Record”, Chapter X,
p. 69. (Continued on p. 215.)

1874.

39. Description of the larva of Pleocoma Le Conte.

Trans. Amer. Entom. Soc. V, p. 84 — 87, September 1874.

NB. Dr. Le Conte gave me this coleopterous larva, which I described at
his request (on p. 87, line 10 from top, for real, read seul). Dr. Ger stacker
contested the view of Le Conte on the systematic location of this insect (Stett.
Ent. Z. 1883, p.436; translated in the periodical “Entomologica Americana” III,
p. 202). Le Conte’s views were conclusively vindicated by Dr. Horn, in the same
periodical, III, p. 233.

40. A List of the Leptidae, Mydaidae and Dasypogonina of North
America.

Bulletin Buffalo Soc. Nat. Hist. October 1874, p. 169 — 187. Compare
No. 45, below.

Additions and Corrections, in the same Bulletin, December 1875, p. 71.

41. Report on the Diptera collected by Lieut. W. L. Carpenter
in Colorado during the summer 1873.

In Dr. Hayden’s U. S. Geol. and Geogr. Survey of Colorado for 1873.
Washington, 1874, p. 561 — 566.

214

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

42. Notice on the Galls collected by Lieut. W. L. Carpenter
in Colorado.

In the same publication as above, 1874, p. 567.

1875.

43. Prodrome of a Monograph of the North American Tabanidae.

Memoirs of the Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist. IF, 1875 — 1878.

NB. This “Prodrome” appeared in three parts: Part I, published in April
1875, contains the Genera Pangonia, Clirysops , Silvkcs, Haemcitopota, Diabasis;
Part II, published April 20 1876, contains the Genus Tabanus; Part 111, pub¬
lished in March 1878, gives a Supplement.

The second Part of this “Prodrome” ( Tabanus ) having been printed during
my journey to California, some errata occur in it, besides those noted on p. 560
of the Supplement.

44. Report on the present condition of the Collection of Diptera
of the Museum of Comparative Zoology in Cambridge, Mass.

In the Annual Report of the Trustees of the Museum to the Legis¬
lature of the State, for 1874. — Bosten, 1875.

45. A List of the North American Syrpliidae.

Bulletin Buffalo Soc. Nat. Ilist. December 1875, p. 38 — 71. Corrections,
ibid. May 1876, p. 130 — 131.

NB. This List, as well as its companion, the List of Leptidae , Mydaidae
etc. No. 40, 1874, above, was published by me principally as specimens of the
arrangement I intended to introduce in my new edition of the Catalogue of N.
Am. Diptera. Both No. 40 und No. 45 are therefore superseded by the new
Catalogue.

46. Note on some Diptera of the Island Guadeloupe, collected
by Mr. E. Pal m e r.

Proe. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist. XVIII, Oct. 1875, p. 133—134.

47. On the North American species of the Genus Syrplius in the
narrowest sense.

Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist. XVII I, Oct, 1875, p. 135 — 153.

NB. About this paper, and the influence it had on my relations with Loew,
compare in this “Record” Chapter XII, p. 89 — 90.

48. On a supposed case of seasonal dimorphism among Diptera.

Psyche, I, p. 113 — 115, November 1875.

NB. This is a short account of my remarks on seasonal dimorphism, con¬
tained in the preceding paper, No. 47.

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

215

49. Three new galls of Cecidomyiae.

Canadian Entomologist, VII, November 1875, p. 201 — 202.

50. Report on the Collection of Diptera made in portions of
Colorado and Arizona during the year 1873.

In Lieut. Geo. M. Wheeler’s “Report upon Explorations and Surveys
West of the 100th meridian”; V, Zoology, p. 805 — SOT, 1875, in
quarto.

1876.

51. Report on the Diptera brought home by Dr. Bessels during
the Arctic Voyage of the “Polaris” in 1872.

Proc. Boston Soo. of Nat. Hist. XIX, Dec. 1876.

(Biographical.) As I said above (p. 218) I devoted nearly four years, bet¬
ween Sept. 1873 and June 1877, to the continuation of my work on N. Ameiicau
Diptera. I began it by spending two winters (1873 — 74 and 1874—75) in
working up the Diptera of the Museum of Zoology in Cambridge, Mass,
(where I had deposited my collections during my absence) and in preparing
materials for the projected new edition of my Catalogue (compare in this
“Record”, my Introduction, p. 7). After finishing this work, I undertook a
prolonged journey through the Western States, as far as California, as much
for the purpose of seeing the country as for collecting Diptera.

Between December 1875 and September 1876, I travelled through Cali¬
fornia as far South as San Diego and San Bernardino, spent a couple of
weeks on top of the Sierra Nevada (Lake Tahoe, Webber Lake etc.) and,
on my return, spent some time in the Rocky Mountains (Colorado Springs,
Gray’s Peak, Denver etc.). On my return East, in September 1876, I se¬
lected Newport, Rhode Island, for my winter quarters. This choice was in¬
fluenced by the temperate winter-climate and the agreeable, intellectual local
society of that place, as well as by the proximity of Cambridge, Mass.,
where 1 had left my library. After nearly six, rather laborious months,
spent in working up the cream of the entomological booty brought home
from my Western journey, my manuscript went rapidly through the Govern¬
ment press in Washington, and my “Western Diptera” was issued at the
end of April, after which, in June 1877, I departed for Europe, and this
time sans esprit de retour!

Brief account of my journey to California in 1876.

Leaving Cambridge Mass, on November 27 1875, by way of New York
I arrived in San Francisco December 20, after a short stay at Salt Lake
City. After spending some time in San Francisco, I went by steamer to
Santa Barbara and to Los Angeles, where I made a more prolonged stay

16

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

during which I undertook excursions to San Diego and San Bernardino.
Here, I had the good chance to make the acquaintance of the enthusiastic
botanist J. G. Lemmon. We started together for a very primitive watering-
place called Crafton’s Retreat, near Milk Creek, from which we had a mag¬
nificent view of Mount Sant Bernardino, with its snow-flag (it was in March).
For my return journey to San Francisco, I went by land. Leaving Los An¬
geles at night, on top of a stage-coach, I had a most fatiguing drive of 24
hours up and down hill across the Coast-Range, then through the Mojave
Desert (at times with herds of antelopes in sight), over the Tachichipi Pass,
finally arriving at a place called, if I remember right, Caliente , the termi¬
nus of the railway then in construction. I took a sleeping-compartment, and
arrived at San Francisco next morning. I was much struck by the glory
of the meadows through which we passed! Their original green was entirely
hidden under a mass of flowers, distributed in large patches of different
shades of blue, pink, red, yellow and white. I spent April and May prin¬
cipally in San Fraucisco and its environs; in June I started for the Yose-
mite Valley. At that time this excursion was made in a very uncomfortable,
usually crowded, stage-coach, starting from the railway station Merced.
I and my companion (the then Russian Consul General at San Francisco)
hired a private carriage and we travelled at leisure, stopping twice to spend
the nights at Mariposa and Clark’s Ranch. From the latter place, we made
on horseback the excursion up the mountain to the celebrated Mariposa
grove of the gigantic Sequoia- trees, or Redwoods, as they are called. We
saw the celebrated “Big-tree” of about 300 feet in height and 30 feet in dia¬
meter. I remained about two weeks in Yosemite Valley, making excursions
on foot or on horseback, in different directions, among them to the top of
the mountain called “Cloud’s Rest“, said to be 10,000 feet high. The sum¬
mit was snow-clad, although it was mid-summer. I returned to San Frau¬
cisco by another route (Chinese Camp, Stockton etc.), by stage and rail. The
heat was intense (I remember, at one of the stations, reading 98° Fahren¬
heit, at 6 A. M.), but as dry heat is not oppressive, and as I kept quiet
and did not drink (except a sip of water at rare intervals), I felt quite com¬
fortable, while my fellow travellers, big Californians, drinking all the time,
looked very red and seemed to suffer agony.

The rest of June and a part of July, I spent North of San Francisco,
principally in Sonoma Co. and on top of the Sierra Nevada, near Lake Tahoe,
Webber Lake etc. (8000 feet above sea-level), where I collected a fine booty
of Diptera. At the latter place, I remember witnessing a singular natural
contrast. In a shady place in the woods I observed a large heap of snow,
a relic of the masses which fall in that mountain range in winter, and from
which the name of these mountains, Sierra Nevada, is derived. At the same
time I could hear a humming-bird (the Californian sp.) humming over my head!

I cannot dismiss the subject of my journey to California, without
paying my tribute of deep gratitude for the generous hospitality I enjoyed
during lhat excursion. In many households I spent several days, and was
thus enabled to explore the environs to my heart’s content. Sherman

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC,

217

P. Stow, with his amiable wife, were my hosts at Goleta, S. Barbara Co.;
Mrs. W. Hood, in Guilucos, Santa Rosa Co.; W. D. Bliss, in Petaluma,
Sonoma Co.; the family Mai Hard in San Rafael, Marin Co. All these
names are connected in my memory with the brightest recollections of the
unrivalled beauties of climate, flora, and nature in general. In San Fran¬
cisco I enjoyed the society of the entomologists I). H. Be hr, of the amiable
lepidopterist Henry Edwards, of James Behrens (in Sancelito), of the
botanist Henry N. Boland er, and of many other entomologists and men
of science. At Los Angeles, 1 made the acquaintance of a distinguished
man, Mr. Hansen, a civil-engineer from Triest, Austria. He was very use¬
ful to me in guiding me during some of my excursions, and pointing out
whatever was of interest to see. During one of these excursions he made
me visit a colony of Spanish-Mexicans, not far from Los Angeles, where he
spent several days in surveying a property which had to be divided between
a number of heirs. Here I had the opportunity of witnessing an original
spectacle, a Mexican horse-race. At that time I also visited Anaheim , a
German colony, founded by a number of well-to-do Germans who had emi¬
grated from Europe during the stormy year of 1848. Anaheim appeared to me
singularly backward in comparison with the surrounding American settle¬
ments. (I have been told in 1902, by an eye-witness, that it has remained
in the same quiescent condition since.)

Another travelling companion whom I had for some time in South-
Califc&ia was the botanist Dr. C. C. Parry, from Davenport, Jowa. With
him I spent one of the most enjoyable days in my life. The Southern Pa¬
cific R. R. was being built at that time through the desert beyond San Gor-
gonio Pass, and we spent the night at the so-called Camp, where the work
was going on. The place is, I believe, now called Seven Palms. We started
the next day on foot across the desert, and roamed for some hours in the
San Jacinto Mountains. Coming down to the plain, we visited an Indian
settlement near a warm spring, and recrossed the desert again on foot, in
the dusk of the evening. The rosy and violet tints of desert and mountains
at sunset, the pure, dry air, the perfect stillness of nature, interrupted at
times by the rush of the large desert hare, left on me an indelible impres¬
sion ! As a memento of this day, I brought home two fine baskets of In¬
dian workmanship (one of them 37 centim. in height, and 60 in diameter),
which I carried six miles over the desert in a kind of hammock of Yucca-
fibre, likewise of Indian workmanship, suspended across my shoulders on
my back.

On my return-journey from California towards the East by the Pacific
R. R. (in August 1876) 1 stopped at the Humboldt Station (Nevada) for the
purpose of exploring the Alcaline Desert surrounding it. After roaming over
the desert during the day, and meeting several very large rattle- snakes and
nobody else, I returned to the station, spending the evening in labeling
the specimens I had collected. In the small room which I occupied the
heat was intense. My occupation excited the curiosity of a young Chinese
servant who was in attendance. After I had explained to him my object, he
patted me softly on my shoulder, and said: “You are a good mau, your are a
wise man”. This expression of respect from a poor Chinese for an occupa-

218

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

tiou which had often brought upon me derision from persons of my own
class, confirmed me in the high opinion I have always entertained for the
antique civilization of China!

On my further journey I enjoyed the hospitality of the Officers of the
U. S. Army at Fort Bridger, Wyoming, a place, if I remember right, situ¬
ated at an altitude of about 8000 feet above sea-level. My principal guide
in that locality, the amiable Dr. James Van Allen Carter, took me to
the marvellous fossiliferous region, called “Les Mauvaises terres”.

At Davenport, Iowa, on the Mississippi, I was met at the station by the
young naturalist Joseph Duncan Putnam and his family, in whose ho¬
spitable home I spent about a week, and formed a life-long friendship with
them all. The premature death of young Putnam, a victim of scientific self-
sacrifice, closed too early a career of the greatest promise. From Davenport,
I went up the Mississippi, by steamer, to St. Paul and Minneapolis, and
crossed overland to Duluth on Lake Superior, where I took the steamer
and went along the Lakes to Buffalo and from there by the N. Y. Central
and the Hudson River Railroads to New York. It was in September, and
I recollect the vivid impression which the magnificent scenery along the
Hudson River and the bright-green vegetation produced upon me as con¬
trasted with the beautiful, but quite different sights I had enjoyed in Cali¬
fornia !

1877.

52. Extract from a letter of Baron Os ten Sac ken to Dr.
Hagen on some specimens of Termites found in California.

Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist. XIX, Jan. 1877, p. 72 — 73.

NB. Published by Dr. Hagen, it refers to some observations new to science
which I bad made not only in California, hut on the high altitudes of the Rocky
Mountains.

53. Western Diptera, descriptions of new genera and spe¬
cies of Diptera from the region West of the Mississippi,
and especially from California.

Bulletin U. S. Geolog. and Geograpb. Survey of the Territories; III,
April 30 1877, p. 189—354.

NB. This paper contains eleven new genera and 137 n. sp. The authorities
of the Geological Survey in Washington not having allowed me to add a sepa¬
rate “Table of Contents” to this publication, I had one printed at my own ex¬
pense and had it distributed with my Author’s Copies. The hurry of the publi¬
cation of the Western Diptera, I am sorry to say, left its traces in many
misprints and other inaccuracies.

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

219

THIRD PERIOD.
WORK IN HEIDELBERG.
1877—1894.

54. A singular habit of Hilara.

Entom. M. Mag. London, XIY, Nov. 1877, p. 126 — 129.

55. Tachina, parasitic on Phasmidae.

Psyche, II, 1877, p. 23 (only five lines).

56. Blephciroptera defessa n. sp.

In Prof. A. S. Packard’s paper: “On a now Cave-fauna in Utah”, which
appeared in the Bullet. U. S. Geo!, and Geogr. Survey III, p. 168,
April 1877.

NB. The bad figure, appended to this description was published without
my knowledge and consent.

1878.

57. Note on luminous Diptera.

Entom. M. Mag. London, XV, p. 43; 1878.

58. Report on the Diptera collected by Capt. Feilden and
Mr. Hart, between 78°— 83° of latitude.

In Mr. Me Lachlan’s Report on the Insects of that Expedition, in the
Journ. Linnean Soc. Zoology, XIY, p. 116 — 118.

59. Dipteren Larven.

Katter’s Entom. Nachrichlen, Jan. 1878, p. 5 (half a page).

NB. Short notice on two larvae, mentioned as unknown in the same
periodical in 1876, p. 31. From internal evidence, I supposed this to he the,
as yet unknown, larva of Triogma (Cylindrotomina). Compare in this “List”
No. 164 (1897).

60. Bemerkungcn liber Blepharoceriden.

Deutsche Ent. Zeit 1878, p. 405 — 416.

NB. This paper has been entirely superseded by my later publications on
the same subject, compare in this “List11 No. 124 (1891) and No. 141 (1895).

220

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

61. Catalogue of the described Diptera of North America.

Second Edition. Washington, Smithsonian Institution, 1878, p. XLVIII
and 276.

NB. Professor Spencer F. Baird published a detailed Notice about this
second edition in the Smithsonian Report of 1878, p. 17 — 18. To charac¬
terize the difference between it and the first edition , he said: “This new edition
is not merely a revision of the Catalogue published twenty years ago, but it is
an entirely new one, prepared on a different plan. The difference between eleven
and sixty-six, the number of species of the one genus Trypeta , represents the
addition made to our knowledge during the interval between the two Cata¬
logues” etc.

1879.

62. The Tanyderina, eine merkwurdige Gruppe der Tipuliden.

Vcrh. Z. B. Ges. Wien 1879, p. 517 — 522.

63. Ueber einige Falle von Copula inter mares bei Insekten.

Stett. Ent. Z. 1879, p. 116 -118.

64. (Without title.) On an immense accumulation of Coleoptera,
observed by me on top of M. Washington in N. America
in July 1865.

Bullet, Soc. Ent, Ital. 21 Dec. 1879, p. 26.

NB. They had been carried up by the ascending current of air.

In the same year 1879 I published;

Analytische Tabelle zum Bestimmen der nordamerikanischen Arten der
Tipuliden-Gattung Pachyrrhina von Dr. H. Loew, mitgeteilt von
C. R. Osten Sacken (Verb. Z. B. Ges. Wien, 1879, p. 513 — 516. (On
p. 515, line 7 from bottom, after suture add: tinged. On the same
page, line 9 from top, after colored ivitli black, add: at both ends.)

1880.

65. Ueber einige merkwurdige Falle von Verschleppung und
Nichtverschleppung von Dipteren nach anderen Welttheilen.

Stett. Ent. Z. 1880, p. 326—332.

NB. This paper has been superseded by a later one, which is more com¬
plete. Compare No. 101 (1884) of this List.

66. Dr. Fritz Muller’s discovery of a case of female dimor¬
phism among Diptera ( Blepharoceridae ).

Entom. M. Mag. London, XVII, 1880, p. 130 — 132; continued ibidem
p. 206, Febr. 1881 (comp, below, No. 72, 1881).

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

221

67. Habits of Bombylius.

Entom. M. Mag. London, XVII, 1880, p. 1G1 ; continued ibidem Febr.
1881, p. 20G— 207.

NB. Observations on the parasitism of the larvae of the Bombylidae Systoc-
chus, Triodites etc. in egg-cases of grasshoppers.

68. About Phora being merely a scavenger and not a true pa¬
rasite.

American Eutomologist, III, November 1880, p. 277.

69. The red clover and hive-bees.

Entom. M. Mag. London, XVII, Nov. 1S80, p. 142.

NB. An item of folk-lore in Mecklenburg, Germany.

70. Besprechung der: “Souvenirs Entomologiques”, von J. H.
Fabre, Vol. I.

Stett. Entom. Z. 1880, p. 136 — 138.

71. Note on American Trypetidae.

Psyche, III, April 1880, p. 53.

NB. Trypetae bred from galls in North America.

1881.

72. Dimorphism of female Blepharoceridae.

Entom. M. Mag. London, XVII, p. 206, February 1881.

NB. Compare above, No. 6G (1880).

73. On the use of the forceps of Forficula.

Canad. Entom. April 1881, p. 80.

NB. The forceps is used for disengaging the wings from under the wing-
covers.

74. Thyreophora antipodiim n. sp. (New Zealand).

Entom. M. Mag. London, XVIII, p. 35, July 1881.

75. On the larva of Nycteribia.

Trans. Ent. Soc. London, Sept. 1881, p. 359 — 36 1 (with a plate, drawn
by Professor J. 0. W e s t w o o d).

76. (Tn French, without title.) Diagnoses of new genera of
Ortalidae.

Bullet. Soc. Entom. France; 10 Aug. 1881. p. XCIX — C.

NB. Preliminary notice for my publication on the Diptera of the Philippine
Islands (compare in this List, No. 83, 1882).

222

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

77. Enumeration of the Diptera of the Malay Archipelago, col¬
lected by Professor 0. Beccari, Mr. L. M. d’ Albertis
and others.

Annali Mus. Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, XVI, p. 393 — 492,
Febr. 1881 ; — Supplement, XVIII, p. 10-20, Febr. 1882.

NB. Four new genera and 38 n. sp. are described.

78. A brief notice of Carl Ludwig Dole sell all, the dipte-
rologist.

Entom. M. Mag. London, XVIII, Oct. 1881, p. 114 — 1 1 G.

79. Verzeichniss der Entomologischen Schriften von Camillo
Rond a n i.

Verb. Z . II. Gesellscli. Wien, 1881, p. 337—344.

NB. This list is superseded by my later, more complete list, comp, below
No. 10G, 1885.

80. An Essay of comparative Chaetotaxy , or the arrangement of
characteristic bristles of Diptera.

Mittb. d. Miinchener Entom. Vereins, V, p. 121 — 138, 1881.

NB. A postscript to this paper was printed and distributed privately by
me; it was reproduced later in the paper: “Nocli ein Paar Worte” etc.; comp.
No. 85, 1882, in this List.

The term Chaetotaxy, proposed by me, has been used in this my No. 80,
1881 for the first time.

My second paper on Chaetotaxy (compare in this List No. 102, 1884) being
more elaborate, has superseded the present one.

As it was expressed by a contemporary at that time, this improved me¬
thod of describing Diptera has opened “new avenues” for this Order (“hat neue
Bahnen eroffnet”; Entomologische Nachrichten, 1881).

81. A relic of the tertiary period in Europe: Elephantomyia, a
genus of Tipulidae.

Mittb. d. Miinchener Entom. Vereins, V, p. 152 — 154; 1881.

NB. Mr. Hiendlmayr, dipterologist in Munich, found in the Bavarian
Alps a single specimen of a Tipulid in which I recognized the North American
Elephantomyia Westwodii 0. S. hitherto never found in Europe. This genus
also occurs in amber.

1882.

82. Synonymica concerning exotic Dipterology.

Wiener Entom. Z. I, p. 19 — 21; January 1882.

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

223

83. Diptera from the Philippine Islands, brought home by Pro¬
fessor 0. Serape r.

Berl. Entom. Z. 1882, p. 82 — 120, and p. 187 — 251.

NB. Contains seven new genera and sixty new species.

84. List of the butterflies collected by me on the Pacific Coast,
and principally in California, in 1876, with notes on their
localities and habits.

“Papilio”, New York, Febr. 1882, II, p. 29 — 31.

NB. This List evokes in me the most delightful recollections of some of
the beautiful captures, mentioned in it. At Webber Lake, Sierra Co., California,
at an altitude of about 8000 feet above sea-level, I hoped to find the alpine
genus Parnassius, which I had never met with in America before. Being ac¬
quainted, from my European experience, with the peculiar mode of flight of this
beautiful butterfly, it was with intense delight that I saw one slowly approach¬
ing me with its “hesitating flight”. (The expression is Schiller’s: “Der zwei-
felnde Fliigel”; I find it in H. v. Kiesenwetter’s: “Physionomik einiger Insekten”,
Berl. Ent. Z. I, 65, 1857. Among all my entomological acquaintances Kiesen-
wetter struck me, more than many others, as “un homme d’esprit!”)

85. Noch ein paar Worte liber Chaetotaxie.

Wiener Ent. Zeit. I, 1882, p. 91 — 92.

NB. Compare above, No. 80, 1881.

8G. Ueber das Betragen des Californischcn fliigelloseu Bittacus.
Wien. Ent. Zeit. I, 1882, p. 193.

87. Referate liber einige in russischer Sprache crschienene dip-
tcrologische Schrifteu.

Wien. Ent. Zeit. I, 18S2, p. 149 — 151; p. 171 — 173.

NB. These publications were: B. A. Jarosclreffski, Yerzeicbnisse der
Dipteren Kharkoff’s; Portchinski, Die Bombus - ahnlichen Pipteren; A. P.
Fedtchenko, Dipteren Moskau’s.

88. Prioritat oder Continuitat? Ein dipterologischer Bcitrag.

Wien. Ent. Zeit. I, 1882, p. 191 — 193.

NB. Protest against the mischievous zeal of some pseudo-entomologists
who push priority in nomenclature to the extreme, at the expense of continuity
and stability. They forget that “l’exactitude est le sublime des sots”!

89. On Professer Brauer’s paper: “Versuch einer Cliarakte-
ristik der Gattungen der Notcicanthen” .

Berl. Ent. Zeitschr. 1882, p. 363 — 380.

NB. This paper was the rock upon which my friendship with Brauer
split! When, after the death of Loew (1879), Brauer began to work on the same

224

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

lines with me (on the Classification, Nomenclature etc. of Diptera). I could not
move without hitting him. “Collidehantur in utero matris parvuli”! (Genesis,
XXV, 22.)

Although my criticisms were expressed in the most measured terms, they
exposed the utter incompetence of the author for the task he had undertaken.
This publication seems to have taken Brauer by sur^se. In evident haste, he
^lued a Rejoinder entitled: “Offenes Scbreiben, als Antwort auf Herrn Baron
Osten Sacken’s Critical Review (sic!) meiner Arbeit liber die Notacantlien".
Vienna, 1888, 11 pages. At that time, I did not take the slightest notice of
this publication, as it was evidently an explosion of impotent wrath without
any scientific value, a succession of flat denials without any proof. As an in¬
stance, I quote the passage (on p. 11): “Die von Herrn Baron Osten Sacken so
sehr hervorgehobenen Fehler sind gar keine Fehler, und das wegwerfende Ur-
theil ist somit aus der Luft gegriffen”. Brauer seems to have been under the
spell of a hallucination when he said (p. 10): “Osten Sacken hat meiner Arbeit
einen degradirenden anderen Titel gegeben; ich unterlasse es, die “critical re¬
view” des Herrn Baron Osten Sacken bei ihrem wahren Namen zu nennen” etc.
This expression “critical review”, which seems to have haunted Brauer, does
not occur at all in my paper 1) and even if I had used it, there is nothing de¬
grading in it. On p. 8, with evident glee, Brauer points out a supposed omis¬
sion of mine, which he imagined to have discovered: ^Hirmoneura clausa 0. S.
hat, nach meiner Untersuchung von sechs Exemplaren aus Colorado, einen lan-
gen diinnen Riissel, der bis zu den Hinterhtiften reicht. — Osten Sacken er-
wdhnt den Russel gar nicht ”. Although I immediately became aware of the
blunder Brauer was committing here, I waited for fourteen years, until the
pointing out of that lapsus became unavoidable. In the Berl. Ent. Z. 1897, p. 149,
I showed that the whole paragraph in Brauer’s “Offenes Schreiben”, p. 8 about
Ilirmoneura clausa 0. S., Rhynchoceplialus and Parasymmictus Bigot is simply
nonsensical , because it is based, not upon any error of mine, but upon the fact
that the six specimens from Colorado, which Brauer had had before him were
not Ilirmoneura clausa 0. S. at all, but another species. Far from making no
mention of the proboscis, I had distinctly described it: “Face densely covered
with pale yellowish hair, through which a short, reddish proboscis is hardly
visible”. Of a “long proboscis, reaching the hind coxae”, there is no question.

If I have insisted upon this incident at some length, it was because it be¬
came the origin of the unmitigated rancor which Brauer since that time bore
against me, a rancor which affected his reputation. This did not prevent me
from giving in this “Record”, Part II, p. 1G8, a glowing account of Brauer’s
success in bis true vocation, the biology of Insects, and especially of his work
on Oestridae.

1 My paper S9 (1882) begins with the words: “A comparative critical
survey'" etc.

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

225

90. Bemerkungen zu Prof. Weyenbergh’s Arbeit: Trypeta Scud-
deri , n. sp.

Verb. Z. B. Ges. Vienna, 1882, p. 369 — 370.

91. Ants and Aphides.

Psyche, III, May 18S2, p. 343.

1883.

92. La deformazione del Cynodon dactylon, prodotta del dittero
Lonchaea lasiophthalma menzionata pel primo da Fran¬
cesco Redi.

Bull. Soc. Entom. Ital. 1883, p. 187 — 188.

93. On the genus Apiocera.

Berl. Entom. Z. 1883, p. 287 — 294.

NB. Compare my two later articles on the same subject: No. 109 (1886)
and No. 123 (1891). Discussion concerning the position of this genus in the
System. I prove that it is an Asilicl and not a Mydaid.

94. Synonymica concerning exotic Dipterology ; No. II.

Berl. Entom. Z. 1883, p. 295 — 298. (Comp, above, No. 82, 1882.)

95. A singular North American fly: Opsebius pterodontinus n. sp.

Berl. Entom. Z. 1883, 299 — 300.

96. Zur Lebensgeschichte der Gattung Hirmoneura.

Wien. Entom. Z. 1883, p. 114.

1884.

97. List of the Diptera of the Island of Madeira, so far as
they are mentioned in entomological literature.

Entom. M. Mag. London, July 1884, p. 32 — 34.

NB. Prepared at the request of one of the Editors of the E. M. M. Com¬
pare the notice about it by Mr. Mik, in the Wien. Ent. Z. 1884, p. 285 — 286.

98. Berichtigungen und Zusiitze zum Verzeichniss der entomo-
logischen Schriften von Camillo Ron dan i.

Verb. Z. B. Ges. Wien, 1884, p. 117—118.

NB. This and the preceding No. 79 (1881) are superseded by the later,
compltte List, published by me in the Boll. Soc. Entom. Ital. Compare below,
No. 106, 1885.

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

226

99. (Notices about dipterological papers of different authors,
published by me in the paragraphs “Literatur” of the
Wiener Entom. Zeitung, 1884.)

a) On two publications of Mr. Port chin sky in the Horae
etc. Rossicae, 1884: 1. Sarcophaga Wohlfahrti, Mono¬
graph ia. 2. Diptera Europaea and Asiatica nova etc.

Wien. Ent. Zeit. 1884, p. 254—255.

b) B. A. Jaro scheffski. Nachtrage zum Verzeichnisse
der Dipteren Kharkoffs (compare above, No. 87, 1882).

Wien. Entom. Zeit. 1884, p. 284 — 2S5.

c) W. F. Kirby. Diptera, collected during the expedition
of the “Challenger” (Ann. & Mag. of N. H.; June 1884).

Wien. Entom. Zeit. 1884, p. 315—316.

NB. This is a severe criticism of Mr. Kirby’s performance.

100. Phalacrocera replicata De G.

Entomologische Nachrichten, 1884, p. 311.

NB. A few lines only, pointing out a description of an aquatic larva de¬
scribed by Prof. Grube, in the Schles. Gesellscli. etc. 1867, p. 59, which, to all
appearances is the same as De Geer’s larva.

101. Facts, concerning the importation and non -importation of
Diptera into distant countries. (Compare No. 65, 1880.)

Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1884, p. 489 — 496.

102. An Essay of comparative Chaetotaxy, or the arrangement
of characteristic bristles of Diptera.

Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1884, p. 497 — 517.

NB. This is the development of the No. 80 (1881) above.

The proof-readers in London have in two cases quite arbitrarily substi¬
tuted the term plumose, which has no sense in that connection, for stubble¬
shaped, which means a bristle truncate at tip, and is the translation of the
German stoppel-formig, which means resembling the stumps of a cereal left on
the ground after harvest. These two cases occur on p. 507, line 14 from bottom ;
and on p. 514, line 9 from bottom.

103. On the New Zealand Dipterous Fauna.

New Zealand Journ. of Science, Sept. 1884, p. 1 98 — 201.

NB. As I have not received any extra-copies of this paper, I had it re¬
printed in Heidelberg in 1902 (see below, Nr. 174, 1902).

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC,

227

104. Verzeichniss der entomologischen Schriften von H. Loew.

Verh. Z. B. Ges. Wien 1884, p. 455—464.

NB. An item lias been omitted in this List, and must be inserted thus:

151 bis- Ueber die lebendig gebarenden Dipterenlarven, welche in den letzten
Jahren beobachtet worden sind.

Beil. Ent. Zeitsehr. 1864, at the end of the volume, under the heading:
“Neuere Literatur”.

Another paper, in the same “Yerzeichniss”, has been mentioned twice:
No. 205 must for this reason be struck out.

1885.

105. Bericht fiber eine in rnssischer Sprache erschienene dip-
terologisclie Arbeit (Step an off, liber die Verwandlung
einiger Bombyliden. Transactions of the Nat. Hist. Soc. in
Kharkoff, Vol. XIV, 1881).

Wien. Ent. Z. Jan. 1885, p. 9 — 10.

NB. A Systoechus, destroying the egg-capsules of a grasshopper.

106. Elenco delle publicazioni entomologiche del Prof. Cam ill o
Rondani.

Bull. Soc. Ent. Ital. 1885, p. 149 — 162.

NB. This complete List supersedes the previous one, No. 79, 1S81.

1886.

107. Eine Beobachtung an Hilara.

Entomol. Nachrichten, 1886, p. 1 — 2.

NB. Reproduction of the article: Ent. M. Mag. London, 1877, p. 126 (see
above No. 54, 1877).

108. Dipterologische Notizen.

Wien. Entom. Z. 1886, p. 42.

109. Correction to my article about Apiucera (compare above,
No. 93, 1883).

Berk Ent Z. 1886, p. 139.

110. Notes towards the history of Scenopinus fenestralis.

Ent. M. Mag. London, Aug. 1886, p. 51 — 52.

111. The Diptera Orthorrhapha in Godman and Salvin’s “Biologia
Centrali-Americana”. A quarto of 216 pages; with three
colored plates.

228

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

NB. My share of this work was published in London, between July 1S86
and March 1887. It contains 130 new species and seven new genera.

112. Some new facts about Eristalis tenax L.

Ent. M. Mag. London, Octob. 1886, p. 97 — 98.

NB. It is in this paper that I stated for the first time that the so-called
bees, which issued from the lion killed by Samson (Book of Judges, 14, 8 — 9)
were not bees at all, but the common drone-fly, Eristalis tenax L. (compare
tfelow, Nos. 133, 142, 147).

113. Characters of the larvae Mycetophilidae.

Heidelberg, 1886; 30 pages and a plate.

NB. This is a reprint, with some additions, of my No. 16 (1862) above.

114. A luminous insect-larva in New Zealand.

Ent, M. Mag. LondoD, Oct. 1886, p. 133—134; 1887, p. 230—231.'

115. Studies on Tipulidae. Part I. Review of the published genera
of the Tipididae longipalpi.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1886, p. 153—188.

1887.

116. On Mr. Por t chin ski’s publications on the larvae of
Muscidae, including a detailed abstract of his last paper;
“Comparative biology of the necrophagous and copropha-
gous larvae”.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1887, p. 17—28.

117. Some American Tackinae.

Canad. Entom. 1887, p. 161 — 166.

NB. This paper must have been printed from a manuscript notice sent by me
to one of my correspondents. I do not remember having authorised this publication.

118. Studies on Tipididae. Part II (comp, above No. 115, Parti).
Review of the published genera of the Tipididae brevipalpi.
Addenda and Corrigenda to Part I.

Berl. Ent Z. 1887, p. 163—241.

NB. On the title-page of the separate copies, read brevipalpi for longipalpi.

1888.

119. Bemerkungen zu Herrn Th. Becker’s Aufsatz liber Dip-
teren-Zwitter.

Wien. Ent. Z. 1888, p. 94.

NB. A few lines of reference to a hermaphrodite of Dilophus , described by Zett.

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

229

120. Chloropisca prolifica n. sp. (United States).

In the “Fourth Report on the injurious and other insects of the State
of New-York”, by J. A. Lintuer, State Entomologist; Albany,
N. Y. 1888, p. 70-72.

NB. A fly occurring in houses in enormous numbers like Chloropisca
ornata Loew in Europe, hut specifically different. About the European species,
compare “Eutomologische Nachrichten”, 1881, p. 17, where the species is called
Clil. nasuta. I discovered later that my Chi. prolifica is the same as Chlorops
variceps Loew, Centuria III, 86. I had been misled by the erroneous location of
the latter species among the Chlorops sensu stricto. It has a flat scutellum and
is a Chloropisca. In my Catalogue of 1878. the locality for Chloropisca variceps
should he Pennsylvania , and not Sitka.

1889.

121. Letter about Haematobia sermta Hob. Desv.

“Iusect-Life“ Washington, Yol. II, Dec. 1889, p. 191.

NB. The specific identity of the American and European specimens of this
fly has been confirmed, after a careful comparison, by the experienced diptero-
logist Ferdinand Kowarz.

[Biographical.) Feeling unwell at the end of February 1889, I went
South for rest and recreation, with the intention of visiting Spain, where I
had never been before. But in Montpellier my state became such that I re¬
turned in great haste to Heidelberg, by way of Genoa. Although, owing to
my excellent constitution I recovered soon, I was advised to abstain from
work for a certain length of time. For this reason I did not publish any¬
thing of consequence during this and the following year.

1890.

122. Hilarimorpha Scliin. is a Lepticl.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1890, p. 303—301.

NB. MM. Mik and Williston considered it an Empid.

1891.

123. Second notice on the Apiocerina.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1891, p. 311 — 315 (see above, No. 93, 1883).

124. Synopsis of the described genera and species of the Blc-
pharoceridae.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1891, p. 407 — 411. (Compare, No. 60, 1878, and No. 144,
1895.)

230

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

125. On the Chaetotaxy of Cacoxenus indagcitor Loew.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1891, p. 411—413.

NB. A complement to I.oew’s description of this fly; I show that my
chaetotactic method is applicable even to very small flies.

12G. On the Synonymy of Antocha 0. S. and Orimargula Mik.

Beil. Ent. Z. 1891, p. 413—416.

NB. Orimargula is nothing hut an Antocha with an open discal cell.

127. Additions and Corrections to the Catalogue of the described
species of South- American Asilidae, by S. W. Will is ton,
(in the Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. XVIII, 1891).

Berl. Ent. Z. 1891, p. 417—428.

128. Suggestions towards a better grouping of certain families
of the Order Dip ter a.

Entom. M. Mag. London, Jan. 1891, p. 35—39.

This publication was intended to foreshadow my No. 130 (1892) of this
List, and gave rise to a succession of attacks against me by MM. Brauer and
Mik.

1892.

129. (Without title, in the Bull. Soc. Ent. de France, April 27
1892.) Answer to a query of Mr. E. Abe i lie de Perrin
concerning an Appendix II, No. 6, p. 600 to the “Species
Insectorum” of Fabricius, which does not exist in many
copies of this work. I refer him to the article of Mr. Schmidt
Goebel in the Stett. Ent. Z. 1881, p. 330.

130. On the Characters of the three Divisions of Diptera, Ncmo-
cera vent, Nemocera anomala and Eremochaeta.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1892, p. 417—466.

An “Explanatory notice” to this paper has been published by me in the
Ent. M. Mag. London, 1893, p. 149 — 150. (Comp, below, No. 132, 1893.) I have
not found time to finish a detailed paper on the Eremochaeta, which I had in
preparation ; the principal feature of it, the suppression of the old family Xylo-
pliagidae, has been introduced by me incidentally ten years before my present
paper, in my No. 89, 1882. (Berl. Ent. Z. 1882, p. 363 — 367.)

1893.

131. Singular swarms of Hies.

“Nature”, June 22 1893, p. 177.

Answer to a query under this heading in the same periodical June 1 1893.
The flies were small Chironomi.

list of my entomological publications etc.

231

132. Explanatory notice of my views on the Sub-orders ofDip-
t e r a.

Ent. M. Mag. London, July 1893, p. 149 — 150.

This notice refers to my No. 130, 1892, above. The passage p. 150, line 5
from top: “The position of the Pupipara I leave an open question” must be
struck out, as there is no doubt that Pupipara belong to the Sub-order Cyclor-
rhapha Athericera.

133. On the so-called “Bugonia” of the Ancients, and its rela¬
tion to Eristalis tenax, a two-winged insect.

Bullet, della Soc. Ent. Ital. 1893, p. 186 — 217.

Offered to the Society in honor of the 25th anniversary of its foundation.
(Reproduced, almost in extenso, in the “Annual Report of the Smithsonian In¬
stitution”, Washington, D. C. 1893, p. 487 — 500.)

A second, much enlarged paper on the same subject was published by me
later, as a separate pamphlet (see below, No. 142, 1894).

134. Corrigendum concerning the “Bugonia” etc.

Ent. M. Mag. London, 1893, p. 287 (two lines only).

I had mistaken the moth Carpocarpsa pomonella , for Trypeta pomonella
Walsh, a dipteron.

135. Zur Geschichte der sogenannten Brustgrate ( breastbone ) der
Cecidomgien, nebst einer Erinnerung an Karl Ernst von
Baer.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1893, p. 373—377.

A passage of this paper has been misunderstood by Mr. Willis ton who,
in his Manual etc. of N. A. Biptera, New Haven, 1896, p. 9, has the erroneous
statement: “This organ, discovered by von Baer, has been called breast-bone by
Ostcn Sacken”!

136. Rejoinder to Prof. Brauer’s: “Thatsachliche Berichtigung”
etc. in the Berl. Ent. Z. 1892, p. 487 — 489.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1893, p. 378—379.

To this paper Brauer replied in his “Bemerkungen” etc. in the Berl.
Pint. Z. 1894, p.235, but this reply elicited immediately a short statement from
Prof. L. C. Mi all (of Leeds, England) ibidem p.447: “Brauer’s quotation from
Weismann refers to Chironomus , and not to Corethra, which has no place
in this discussion” etc. This was one of the inadvertences Prof. Brauer is apt
to commit in his hasty rejoinders.

232

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC,

137. Two critical remarks about the recently published third
part of the “Muscaria Schizometopa” of MM. Brauer and
Bergen stamm, also a notice on Rob. Desvoidy.

Beil. Ent. Z. 1893, p. 380-385.

My excellent friend J. M. F. Bigot died April 14 1893 at his country-seat
near Paris at the age of 74 years. (An Obituary Notice will be found in the
Bulletin de la Soc. Ent. de France April 20 1893.) My acquaintance with Bigot
was of long date. When I met him again after my return from the United States
in 1877, and our relations were renewed, I felt it my duty, although treating
him as a friend, to tell him the truth about his publications. I did so, during
one of my visits to Paris (the year I do not remember), in telling him that he
was doing a useful work in forming a large collection, especially of exotic Dip-
tera; but that he should renounce descriptive work, for which he was not com¬
petent. I expressed my opinion in the strongest terms, concluding with the
words: “If all your publications could he suppressed, it would be a gain for
science!”1 He winced a little, but resumed immediately his serene expression,
and said: “Eh bien, cela m’amuse”! My frankness did not prevent us from re¬
maining friends up to his death. In the most generous manner, he kept his
rich collection and library at my disposal. Even when he was away from Paris
(he usually spent his winters in Algiers) he left orders to his housekeeper to
admit me at any time into his sanctum , and to light a fire for me in winter.
I keep of my friend Bigot and of his family (wife and daughter) a pleasant and
grateful recollection.

The share I had in the sale of Bigot’s collection is explained in the Bul¬
letin de la Soc. Ent. de France, June 14 1893. In this notice it should have
been added that I had written to the Authorities of the Museum in Paris, urg¬
ing them to purchase this importaut collection offered at a very moderate price
(6000 francs). My advice, however, was not heeded, and the collection passed
into the hands of Mr. G. II. Verrall of Newmarket, England, and will ultima¬
tely, as I understand, find its place in the British Museum.

It remains for me now to reproduce the opinion expressed by Mr. Bigot
himself, at different times, about his own publications:

In the Annales etc. 1885, p. 225 he said: “J’avais autrefois (Ann. etc.
1852 — 1859) commence la publication d’un travail intitule: ldssai d’un classifi¬
cation generate et synoptique de VOrdre des Insectes Dipteres etc. Cette oeuvre
fut alors severement et doctoralement critiquee dans le Bericht de Gerstaccker

1 From this general condemnation I except of course those publications of
Bigot which are illustrated by excellent colored plates (as his Vipt'cres da Ma¬
dagascar and Dipteres du Chili).

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

233

(Berlin) par l’habile dipteriste II. Loew. Je dois confesser que la plupart de
ses objections m’ont paru tellement fondees que, reconnaissant la mediocre va-
leur de mes Essais, je me resigne a les abandonner a mi-chemin”. Whereupon
Mr. Bigot proposes a new plan for the distribution of the Diptera, into two
Tribes: Omalocerati and Anomalocerati etc.

A further discussion between Bigot and G. II. Verrall, about questions of
orthography and of mutual courtesy will be found in the Wien. Ent. Zeitschr.
1889, p. 168, 265 and 293. In the latter notice, Bigot renews his former recan¬
tation of his “ Essai “Si Mr. Verrall avait daigne lire mes opuscules, etc. il
y aurait vu, maintes fois rcpete, que mon ancien travail, intitule “Essai" etc.
devait etre desormais, et dans son entier, considere comme nul et non avenu ,
declaration qui m’absout naturellement des fautes que j’ai pu y commettre”.

1894.

138. On the Atavic Index-characters, with some Remarks on
the classification of Diptera.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1894, p. 69 — 76.

139. Synonymica about Tipulidae.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1894, p. 249-263.

In the first part of this paper I propose some rules to be observed in
adducing synonymies, rules which have hitherto been generally neglected by
authors (including myself).

140. Three Trochobolae from New Zealand and Tasmania.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1894, p. 264 — 266.

A Correction to this paper was published by me ibid. 1895, p. 170; but,
on that page, read australis Skuse, for australensis.

141. A remarkable case of malformation of the discal cell in a
specimen of Liogma glabrata.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1894, p. 267—268.

142. On the oxen -born bees of the Ancients ( Bugonia ), and
their relation to Eristalis tenax , a two-winged insect.

Heidelberg, 1894, XIV and 80 pages (printing-office of J. Hoerning).
This is a new edition, much enlarged, of my No. 133, 1893. See also
below, No. 147, 1895.

An interesting result of my identification of the Oxen-born bees of the
ancients with the fly Eristalis tenax (drone-fly) is the very simple explanation
of the story of Samson’s bees which it affords. These pretended bees, which
Samson found nesting in the carcass of the lion he had killed a short time be¬
fore, were the common drone-flies , resembling bees. This story, which has been

234

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

the puzzle of interpreters for centuries, and in which Professor Max Muller
saw a solar myth, thus turns out not to be a myth at all, but an actual occur¬
rence. In my No. 142, 1894, p. 16 — 18 will be found a detailed explanation of
this story.

1895.

143. Eristalis tenax in Chinese and Japanese literature.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1895, p. 142—147.

This paper, in a corrected form, has been incorporated in my Additional
notes etc., No. 147, 1895, below.

144. Contributions to the study of the Liponeuridae Loew ( Bin -
pharoceridae Macq.).

Berl. Ent. Z. 1895, p. 148 — 169.

A “Correction” to this paper was published by me in the Ent. M. Mag.
London, 1895, p. 118, and a “Supplement” in the Berl. Ent. Z. 1895, p. 351—355.

145. Western Pediciae, Bittacomorphae and Trichocerae.

Psyche, Vol. VII, April 1895, p. 229 — 231.

I take occasion to notice here that the specimen of Bittacomorplia, taken
by Lord Walsingham at Pitt River, California, and mentioned in the Ent. M.
Mag. London 1879, Vol. XVI, p. 70, was not the Eastern B. clavipcs, as stated
there, but the Western B. occidentalis Aldrich, described in 1895.

146. Appendix to Professor L. C. Mi all’s and Mr. Walker’s
paper: “The life-history of Pericoma canescens ” (Psycho-
didae).

Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1895, p. 147 — 152.

This Appendix, prepared by me at the request of Prof. Miall, contains an
account of the literature concerning the early stages of Psychodae.

147. Additional notes in explanation of the Bugonia-lore of the
Ancients.

Heidelberg, J. Iloerning, 1895 (23 pages). Comp, above, No. 142, 1894.

148. Fungoid disease of Tipulae.

Ent. M. Mag. London, 1895, p. 215.

149. Midas or Mydas ? A contribution to entomological nomen¬
clature.

Berl. Ent, Z. 1895, p. 345—350.

I prove that Fabricius’s spelling Mydas was intentional, and not a mis¬
spelling, as was supposed.

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

235

150. Remarks on the homologies and differences between the
first stages of Pericoma Hal. and those of a new Brazilian
species (with two plates).

Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1895, p. 483 — 487.

This paper is explanatory of Dr. Fritz Muller’s paper in the same volume,
which is entitled: “Contribution towards the history of a new form of larvae of
Psychodidae (Diptera) from Brazil”. The Rev. Alfred E. Eaton, at my re¬
quest, prepared a third paper: “Supplementary notes on Dr. F. Muller’s paper
on a new form of larvae of Psychodidae from Brazil” (ibid. p. 489 — 493). This
new form of larva of a Brazilian Psychoclid is remarkable for suctorial discs
on its ventral side, which are like those of the larvae of Blepliaroceridae.

In the “Introduction”, p. 16, line 13 from bottom, I have said: “A similar
paper on Cyrtidae, which was nearly finished in 1895, is still unpublished”.
This passage requires an explanation. My intention at that time, was, before
publishing my paper, to pay a visit to England and to verify some doubtful
points in the Museums in London and Oxford. In the mean time Professor Dr.
Karsch, of the Berlin Museum, with whom I was in correspondence, wrote me
that one of the young attaches of the Museum, Dr. Benno Wandolleck, felt
much disappointed when he heard of my purpose of a publication on the Cyr¬
tidae, as he had entertained the same intention. Supposing that a trained zoo¬
logist of the Berlin Museum was much more capable than I to accomplish such
a task, I did not hesitate a moment in offering him my manuscript for use.
He expressed to me his most sincere gratitude in a letter of Sept. 22 1895.
On January 4 1896 he wrote me that he was occupied with translating my ma¬
nuscript, and would return it to me soon afterwards. On August 17 1896 he in¬
formed me of the progress of his work, that he had received materials from Vienna,
and from Mr. Verrall in Newmarket.

Not hearing anything about the matter since, I made a new inquiry (in
March 1904), and was informed that the author’s private affairs had prevented
him from continuing his work, but that he hoped, nevertheless, to take it up
again, as soon as his circumstances would allow it. In the mean time he had
returned my MSS. to me.

1896.

151. A new genus of Cyrtidae (Dipt.) from New Zealand.

Ent. M. Mag. London, 1896, p. 16 — 18.

Helle, gen. nov. An inadvertence occurred in the very first line of this
paper: for Megalybus Westw., read Megalybus Philippi.

152. Camarota, as a noxious insect.

Ent. M. Mag. London, 1896, p. 257.

236

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

153. Bibliographische, und theilweise psychologische Untersuch-
ung iiber die zwei Ausgaben der Erstlingsarbeit von
H. Loew: “Ueber die Posener Dipteren”.

Berl. Ent, Z. 1896, p. 279—284.

154. Notice on the terms: tegula, antitegula, squama and alula,
as used in dipterology.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1896, p. 285 — 288.

155. The larval habits of Baccha.

Ent. M. Mag. London, 1896, p. 279.

NB. This is a mere reference to my notice on the same subject in the Stett.
Ent. Z. 1862, p. 412.

1897.

156. Prof. Mile’s genus Paracrocera (Cyrtidae), with a Post¬
script about the genus Alloeoneurus Mik (Dolichop.).

Berl. Ent. Z. 1896, p. 323-327.

NB. The last part of this volume of the Berl. Ent. Z. appeared only at the
end of May 1897 ; my separate copies of this and of the three following papers
(Nos. 157, 158 and 159) had been distributed a short time before, that is, in
1896.

Mik’s misunderstanding of the term “piracy”, which I had used in this paper,
and accusing me of calling him a pirate (Seeriiubcr), my explanation, and his
reply to it (Wien. Ent. Z. 1897, p. 212), was an incident which I considered as
“a slight contribution to the gaiety of nations” (compare above p. 180).

157. Ou the terms Calyptratae and Acalyptratae , Calypta and

Calyptra, as they have been used in entomology (A supple¬
ment to my article No. 154, 1896: “Notice on the terms:
tegula, antitegula'1'1 etc.). ^ tiwT. \ . 1 7^,

158. Preliminary Notice of a Subdivision of the Sub-order Orthor-
rhapha brachycera on chaetotactic principles.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1896, p. 365 — 373.

NB. Two inadvertences have occurred in this paper: on p. 368, in the last
line at bottom, and in line 11 from bottom, read Achaeta, for Acheta.

159. The genus Phyllolabis 0. S. (Dipt. Tipul.), a remarkable
case of disconnected areas of geographical distribution.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1896, p. 374—376.

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

237

160. Professor E. D. Cope as an Entomologist.

Psycho, Vol. VIII, p. 75.

NB. Publication of a short but interesting note, which this celebrated pa¬
laeontologist wrote me in 1867.

161. (The paragraph on Diptera in Dr. Lucas v. Hey den’s:
Insecta, in the Abh. d. Senckenb. Nat. Ges. XXIII, Heft IV,
p. 589-590).

Enumeration of the species of a small correction of Diptera from Hal-
maheira, Celebes and Borneo (in the Austro-Malayan Archipelago);
15 species in all.

162. Identification of two Genera of Nemestrinidae, published by
Mr. Bigot, together with some remarks on Dr. Wandolleck’s
paper on that family.

Berl. Ent. Z. 1897, p. 145—149.

This is the paper ia which, after fourteen years of silence, I called atten¬
tion to the egregious blunder committed by Prof. Brauer in his “Offenes Schrei-
ben” etc. of 1883. (Compare above, No. 89, 1882.) Dr. Wandolleck’s paper
on Nemestrinidae, in which he overlooked Loew’s publication upon it, and his
very lame excuse for this omission, are duly noticed. — The volume 1897
of the Berl. Ent. Zeit. was distributed, as stated on its cover, in Juli 1898; my
extra-copies of No. 162 had been distributed by me six months earlier, in Dec.
1897, and therefore must bear that date.

163. Amalopis Hal. (0. S.) versus Tricyphona Bergroth {not Zct-
terstedt).

Berl. Ent. Z. 1897, p. 150 — 154.

To my carefully prepared statement Mr. Bergroth made a reply of 18 lines
(Wien. Ent. Z. 1898, p. 267).

164. Remarks on the literature of the earlier stages of the
Cylindrotomina, a Section of the Tipulidae.

Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1897, p. 362—366.

This paper was prepared at the request of Prof. L. C. Miall, to serve as
an Appendix to his paper “The structure and Life-history of Plialacrocera re-
plicata

1898.

During this year I was principally occupied with the manu¬
script of the “Record of my Life Work in Entomology” the
preparation of which I had begun several years before. In

3

238

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

August 1898, having been compelled to vacate the lodgings
which I had occupied in Heidelberg for 21 years, I purchased
a house and garden in Bunsen Str. 8. The renovation of this
house from top to bottom, the furnishing of it, the moving
into it of my large library and of my various collections (and
that at the age of seventy ) resulted in a complete prostration,
which prevented me from attempting any scientific publication
for more than a year after.

1899.

165. (Without title). A note in Dr. S. H. S cu dder’s article:
“An unknown tract on American Insects, by Thomas Say”
(in Psyche, January 1899, p. 306—308). I expressed the
opinion that Trypeta trifasciata Say, New Harmony, 1831,
from Louisiana, must be either identical, or closely allied
to Chaetopsis debilis Loew, Monogr. etc. Ill, p. 172, Tab. 9,
fig. 20, from Cuba.

Towards the end of 1898, Dr. D. Sharp, of Cambridge, England, sent me
the proof-sheets of the chapter on Diptera , for his work “On Insects”, for the
“Cambridge Natural History” series, Vol. VI, London 1899. My debilitated state
notwithstanding, I sent to Dr. Sharp a detailed Memorandum of emendations
and remarks. He expressed his thanks in a letter dated January 29 1899.

In April 1899, at the request of Mr. L. 0. Howard, Entomologist of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture in Washington, D. C. I sent him a Memoran¬
dum, frankly expressing my very unfavorable opinon of the publications of Mr.
D. W. Co quill ett on Diptera. My opinion produced, apparently, no effect what¬
ever in Washington.

1900.

166. Notiz fiber die Erstlingsarbeit vou C. Dumeril fiber ent.o-
mologische Classification, mit besonderer Rficksicht auf die
Gattung Tetanocera.

Verb. Z. B. Ges. Wien, 1900, p. 450 — 451.

1901.

167. On the new nomenclature of the family Cecidomyiae , adopted
by Mr. Rfibsaame n and others.

Ent. M. Mag. London, Fcbr. 1901, p. 40 — 43.

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

239

168. A Prospectus of the “Record of my Life-Work in En¬
tomology”, as it exists in manuscript.

Heidelberg, June 1901. — A pamphlet of nine pages, printed by
J. Hoerning in Heidelberg, which I distributed to my correspondents.

108 tis. Notice on the Synonymy of Anopheles macnlipennis M.

Ent. M. Mag. London, Dec. 1900, p. 282 — 283.

I show that this is the correct specific name of this species, and not
A. claviger Fabr. Syst. Autl. 1805, which has been adopted for it by recent
authors.

169. An Introduction to my “Record of my Life Work in
Entomology”.

Printed in pamphlet-form in Cambridge, England, at the University
Press. Later, this ‘'Introduction” was reproduced without any change
in Part I of my ‘‘Record” etc. which appeared in Cambridge, Mass,
in October 1903.

170. The two methods of determining Diptera.

Ent. M. Mag. London, Dec. 1901, p. 295 — 296.

This formed a part of the manuscript of my “Record” which I published
in advance. It will be found reproduced in the “Record” on p. 129 — 130.

171. Mosquito-swarms responsive to sounds.

Ent. M. Mag. London, Dec. 1901, p. 296.

1902.

172. Publication of the two first sheets of my “Record”,
Part II. They were printed in Heidelberg and distributed
to my correspondents as a sample of what was coming.
Three plates were added to them: the portraits of Loew
and Haliday, and a plate with a facsimile of Loew’s
handwriting. The Preface is dated April 1902.

173. A remarkable instance of deliberation observed in an Am e-
rican ant.

Ent. M. Mag. London, 1902, p. 172.

174. On the New Zealand Dipterous Fauna.

A reprint, with a few emendations, of the paper No. 103, 1884 of this
List, which appeared originally in the “New Zealand Journal of
Science” Sept. 1884, p. 198 — 200.

240

LIST OF MY ENTOMOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS ETC.

175. On the position of Phora in the System of Diptera.

Ent. M. Mag. Loudon, 1902, p. 204.

17G. On the distinctive character of the imagos of the Sub¬
orders of Diptera: Ortliorrliapha Brachycera and Cydorrhapha
Athericera, introduced by Latreille (1825), but overlooked
by other authors.

Ent. M. Mag. London, 1902, p. 228.

1903.

177. Berichtigung zu Herrn Fr. Hen del’s Notiz iiber meinen
Aufsatz: “On the position of Phora ” etc.

Wien. Ent. Z. 1903, p. 120.

A short rejoinder to the fierce attack which Mr. F. Ilendel, evidently at the
instigation of Prof. Brauer, made on my papers No. 175 and No. 176, 1902 (see
above).

178. Record of my Life-Work in Entomology, Part I and II.

Cambridge, Blass., October 1903, University Press.

With the portraits of Haliday and Loew, and a facsimile of the lat¬
ter’s handwriting.

This volume contains the Part I (Introduction) and the Part II (“Twenty-
four Chapters” etc.) of the “Record”. At the end of the volume I have inserted
a “Postscript”, printed in Heidelberg, Germany, expressing my profound gra¬
titude to Mr. Samuel Ilenshaw, of the Zoological Bluseum in Cambridge, Blass,
for seeing my “Record” througlYthe press.

1904.

179. Record of my Life-Work in Entomology, Part III.

Printed in Heidelberg, Germany, in the University printing-office
J. Hoerning.

This volume contains the List of my Entomological Publications from
1854 to 1904/ This List is, of course, arranged chronologically; short biographi¬
cal paragraphs are intercalated in it from time to time, for the purpose of showing
under what circumstances of my external life my successive publications had
been issued.

This my “Record” of half a century (1854 — 1904) of ento¬
mological work I now conclude, at the age of 7G, in good health
and with unimpaired eye-sight.

Heidelberg, Germany, March 3 1 1 904.

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA.

p. 2, line 6 and 7 from top, should read : “Shatiloff’s portrait
is in Vol. I” etc.

p. 60, line 15 from bottom. Mr. G. H. Verrall wrote me that
“Curtis’s Guide, Edit. II, p. 280, has Malacomyza ”,
and not Malacomyia, as I had quoted it on my p. 60. I
find now that in the copy of Curtis’s “Guide”, annotated
by Haliday, which he had sent to Loew, and which is
now in my possession, the original spelling Malacomyza is,
by Haliday himself, converted into Malacomyia , by the
erasure of the 2, which is replaced by an i. I had not
noticed this change before, and was, therefore, puzzled
by the spelling Malacomyza in another passage (compare
the same page 60, six lines below),
p. 61, line 8 from top, read 1867, for 1847.
p. 142, line 6 from bottom, read 1855 for 1885.
p. 144, at top. Mr. G. H. Verrall called my attention to the tact
that, “as Zetterstedt missed pages 5100 to 5999 in his
work, there were only 5709 pages, which make an aver¬
age of 408 per volume”. A corresponding change must,
therefore, be made in my letter-press. I find now that
Zetterstedt himself has called attention to this omission.
At the very end of his work, Vol. XIV, p. 6609, I find the
passage: “ Observandum : In Tomo XIII, paginis 6000, 6001,
et sic porro; lege: 5000, 5001 et sic porro”. But here
Zetterstedt commits a new mistake; it should be: 5100,
5101 etc. up to 5999.

p. 145, line 9 from bottom, read 1845 for 1885.

POSTSCRIPT.

To make my “Record” complete, it should have been pro¬
vided with an Index, prepared bp myself, because that alone
would have answered my purpose. But I feel that such a task,
at present, would be beyond my strength. The detailed Table
of Contents which I have given at the beginning of Part II,
must, in the meantime, supply the absence of a good Index.

Printed by J. Hoerning, Heidelberg:.

* \ <*• rjm X /

\\ A

\ *

^ _ *5

am:- *

^0% % <^0^ ^li

VW/ \}*m0'^ % y \0^

* (J« - c±J S', ■ — ='^ nN ‘ — > Vo

t&m

author -

Osten-Sacken

Title - -

work