122 
LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST 
“ There is a mine of systematic characters yet to he explored in the study of 
the Chaetotaxy of the Asilidae. As an instance I will cite Dasypogon diadema 
and D. teutonus , placed by Loew in the same ultimate subdivision of Dasypogon 
(sensu stricto ) ; a glance at the Chaetotaxy of these species shows that I>. teutonus 
has no bristles on the scutellum, while in D. diadema the scutellum is beset with 
4-6 strong macrochaetae. A further examination reveals other abundant differ¬ 
ences in the arrangement of the bristles on the thorax and on the legs ; it dis¬ 
closes at the same time other characters peculiar to each of the species, in the 
shape of the abdomen, in the structure of the forceps of the male, etc., — all of 
which tend to prove that these species belong to two very distinct genera. And 
yet, when we read the descriptions (not excepting even those of Loew), we find 
almost nothing but colors mentioned.” 
There is no doubt that Loew’s work on European Asiliclae , in 
bringing together a mass of new material satisfactorily (for the time 
being) grouped and described, represented, when it was published, a 
considerable progress, and rendered a real service to European dip- 
terology. But it must be acknowledged at the same time that, 
considering the large amount of material Loew had at his disposal, 
he might have done more for the classification of the family in gen¬ 
eral, and thus paved the way for dipterologists of other parts of 
the world besides Europe. 
The above paragraph was already written when I received the April number of 
the Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1899. It contains an article by Mr. F. Hendel of Vienna : 
“ Ein verschollener Asilus Central- Europa’s.” The author shows that the concepts 
of several of the genera, carved out by Loew from the old genus Asilus, are very 
indefinite and unsatisfactory, and that Loew himself, when he obtained new species, 
was doubtful in which of these genera to place them. 
In attempting to subdivide the Bombyliidae, Loew met with many 
perplexities. In the Linnaea , Yol. I (1846), p. 371, he said: “ The 
separation of the genus Lomatia from Anthrax will be very diffi¬ 
cult to maintain, as both, although sufficiently distinguished in 
their European representatives, seem to coalesce so much in their 
exotic species that the limit between them becomes very indefi¬ 
nite.” Loew was not more advanced fourteen years later in the 
“Dipteren-Fauna Stidafrika’s,” I860, p. 176, at top. Here lie 
closes a very long discussion with the humble confession that 
“ finally nothing remains to be done but to be governed by a cer¬ 
tain instinct in distinguishing the general appearance (‘ Gesammt- 
habitus ’), like that of Bombylius , from that of an Anthrax. . . . 
