LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST 
109 
classification of Diptera, which, I regret to state in advance, was 
not the department in which he was particularly successful. 
In judging of Loew's attempts to classify the Nemocera, we must 
distinguish the years before the beginning of his correspondence 
with Haliday (in 1847) from those after this date. Before it, Loew 
was under the influence of Westwood’s “ Introduction,” etc. (1840), 
and especially of the concluding part of it, the “ Synopsis ” (at the 
end of the second volume), which he erroneously attributed to 
Haliday (comp. “ Dipterologische Beitriige,” Yol. I, p. 10 at top, 
1845). In the very first letter of Haliday to Loew (September, 
1847), there is a passage which proves that Haliday did not hold 
himself responsible, for instance, for the connection of the Psycho- 
didae with the Cecidomyiidae adopted by Westwood. Cecidomyia , 
Psychoda , Sciara (Molobrus Latr.), and Anarete Halid, had been 
united by Westwood in his subfamily Cecidomyiinae (“Synopsis,” 
p. 126, in Westwood’s Yol. II). 
In his early papers, Loew betrays a remarkable want of method 
in assuming relationships upon very vague indications, and attribut¬ 
ing too great an importance to superficial resemblances in the vena¬ 
tion. In his “ Beschreibung einiger neuen Gattungen der euro- 
paischen Dipterenfauna” ( Stett . Put. Zeit ., 1844, p. 117), he says: 
“ I believe that this group, Psychodidae , can very well be united 
with the Cecidomyiidae , as Westwood has done it; the resemblance 
of the early stages may even justify the connection of Sciara with 
them.” On the next page (p. 118) he produces a tabular arrange¬ 
ment, very like that which appeared next year in his “ Dipterolo¬ 
gische Beitrage,” Yol. I, p. 10 (1845). 
In the same article of 1844, Loew introduces the new genus 
Liponeura (Blepliaroceridae) and brings it (p. 121-122) in connec¬ 
tion with Macropeza (a relative of Ceratopoyon ) and with Diamesa 
(a relative of Chironomus'), a juxtaposition based merely upon the 
venation. Loew says : “ These three genera form a peculiar little 
group, and the question is, whether still other genera do not belong 
to it.” Chenesia Macq. (which afterwards proved to be the same 
as Orphnephila Hal.) is introduced into this same pretended group, 
with the remark: “ I have no doubt that Simulium has a certain 
relationship with the same genus ” ; upon which follows a discus- 
