LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST 
121 
was always recommending the use of what he called plastic de¬ 
scriptive characters, did not perceive in this case the difference 
between macrochaetae and ordinary bristles, and thus missed one 
of the most useful descriptive characters in this family. The short 
prefatory notice (of only eight pages) preceding the descriptive por¬ 
tion of his work on Asilidae (Linnaea , Yol. IT, p. 384-392, 1847) 
is nothing but a rather superficial survey of previous publications. 
It also contains a paragraph on “Nomenclature,” establishing rules 
which Loew himself, in later years, has not observed. A few 
years before, in 1840, in the Preface of his second edition of the 
“ Posener Dipteren,” Loew had likewise proposed a very inexpe¬ 
dient rule of nomenclature, which he never followed afterwards. 
(Compare my paper in the Berl. Eat. Zeit ., 1896, p. 284, in the foot¬ 
note ; 153, 1896.) 
It was in that portion of his Monograph only in which Loew 
reached the difficult Section of Asilina, that he found it necessary 
to explain himself more distinctly on the use of the terms referring 
to bristles, hairs, etc., which play so prominent a part in the de¬ 
scriptive paragraphs of that section. This explanation ( Linnaea , 
Yol. Ill, p. 419-421), for the reason already stated, the inattention 
to macrochaetae, must be considered as a failure. Three years be¬ 
fore this publication of Loew, Rondani ( Nuov . Ann. Sci. Nat., 
Bologna, 1845), in a paper on Tachinidae, had distinguished ma¬ 
crochaetae from ordinary hairs and bristles, and introduced this 
term for them, and it is to be regretted that, after this good begin¬ 
ning, he lias not developed the advantages of this innovation, and 
has not made use of it in his later publications. (A detailed notice 
of this paper of Rondani in 1845 will be found in my Chapter 
XIX.) Loew was in possession of Rondani’s paper, but, instead 
of paying attention to this important progress, he contented him¬ 
self with eleven lines of supercilious and flippant criticism of it 
in his general article upon Rondani’s publications in the Stett. 
Eat. Zeit., 1847, p. 155. 
In my “Essay of comparative Chaetotaxy,” etc. (102, 1884), I 
have taken notice of Loew's neglect of macrochaetae in the follow¬ 
ing terms: — 
