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- 
