called Oistros and Asilus by the Ancients. 357 
Messrs. Kirby and Spence in their Introduction to Entomology 
think that the ancient Myops was some species of Latreille's genus 
Tabanus, and that the Œstrus of the Greeks may either have been 
a Pangonia or a Nemestrina. What we know, however, of the lat- 
ter genus answers in no one respect to the description above given 
of the ancient Œstrus, which certainly was an insect allied to 
the modern Tabanus; whereas Nemestrina has no immediate 
connexion with it either in economy or structure. Besides, no 
Nemestrina has ever yet been found in Europe. The argu- 
ment for Pangonia is rather stronger, as this is not only an Eu- 
ropean genus, but one nearly allied to Tabanus. Aristotle how- 
ever says, that his Œstrus and Myops have both a strong tongue 
(ioyvedy yħðrrav $yovci) ; a description in perfect accord with the 
mouth of a modern Tabanus, but quite at variance with the long, 
weak and flexible proboscis of Pangonia, which can scarcely be 
supposed capable of piercing the hide of an ox. Olivier and 
Latreille indeed both state, that the long trunk of Pangonia, 
like that of Bombylius, only serves for sucking flowers. But to 
insects that suck flowers Aristotle expressly places his o/zzeoz in 
opposition. : 
It is rather interesting to remark the manner in which the 
early modern naturalists viewed this subject. Mouffet’s opi- 
nion is, as far as I can make it out, the same with mine given 
above. At all events he considers the uoc of the Greeks to be 
our Hematopota pluvialis. Ray, on the other hand, considers 
this insect to be the o/zzeoz, as we may judge from the following 
description, ** Musca bipennis Œstrum dicta, alis membrana- 
ceis punctis crebris nigrioribus velut adspersis :" which is clearly 
the Hematopota. 
Valisnieri appears to have been the first naturalist of any repute 
who took the modern Œstrus to be that of Virgil, while Martyn 
and other commentators seem to have adopted his opinzon. The 
3 A 92 first 
