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, Smil 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 
