HALIDAY AND LOEW 
61 
The dates of the Swedish authors are: — 
Coelopci fucorum Zett., Dipt. Seand., Yol. VI, p. 2474 (1847). 
Phycodroma, gen. nov. Stenh., Handl. K. Vet. Akad., Stockholm, 1854, p. 270; 
Separatum: 1855, p. 12. Type: Coelopafucorum Zett. 
Both references are later than Haliday’s, and therefore he was right in vindicat¬ 
ing his own priority. I find that Rondani, in his “ Sarcophaginae Italicae ” (Atti 
di Milano, 1847, p. 131), although under the influence of Haliday at that time, 
adopts Phycodroma Stenh. (which he spells Phycodromya ), and places Malacomyia 
Hal. 1838 as a synonym. Nevertheless, on the next page, 132, he has: P. liydro- 
myzina Hal. 1832 (should be sciomyzina , comp, on the same page, line 8 from top) 
with fucorum Zett. 1847 as a synonym. Here, therefore, Rondani recognizes the 
priority of Haliday’s publication. 
(4) “ Monographs,” I, p. 129, Ephydrinidae. “Analogy would require 
Ephydridae ” (Hal.). 
Loew adopted this emendation in his later publications; compare, for instance, 
“ Ueber Dipt. Augsb. Gegend,” 1869, p. 47; also in Perl. Ent. Zeit., 1876, 
p. 76. 
(5) “ Monographs,” I, p. 149, line 16. Haliday corrects: “beneath the 
eyes” into “beneath the antennae,” which is right. 
Concerning the venation, Haliday observes about the origin of the auxiliary 
vein (“ Monographs,” I, p. xvi, lines 20-22): “ Does not the auxiliary vein arise 
from the second main trunk ? ” Loew had stated that it issues from the 
first. 
About the English of the “Monographs,” Haliday said in the same letter: “ It 
is always intelligible, although not always correct.” His corrections are numerous, 
and display a remarkable grammatical acumen, but it would be superfluous to re¬ 
produce them here. 
A short account of the relations of Iialiday with Rondani will 
be found in my Chapter XIX. 
I regret that I never met Haliday. In 1869 I sent him by post 
from New York to Lucca, where he resided at that time, a copy of 
my second “ Monograph of the Tipulidae brevipalpi ” which had 
just been published. The parcel never reached him, but he re¬ 
ceived the letter accompanying it, and expressed his regrets at the 
loss in a letter dated February 15, 1869. He died in July, 1870, 
and thus I lost the opportunity of meeting him during the winter 
I spent in Italy two years later. 
Besides my gleanings from the letters of Haliday to Loew re¬ 
produced in the present chapter, I found in these letters some very 
interesting remarks and suggestions in regard to classification. I 
have reserved them for my Chapter XVI: “Characterization of 
Loew as a Dipterologist. ” 
