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 
