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. 
