LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST 
123 
That such a subdivision would be quite arbitrary, and without any 
scientific value whatever, is self-evident. ” My own little experience 
of the Bombyliidae has taught me that a subdivision of them, not 
into two, but into several groups is quite feasible. Schiner had 
paved the way towards such a subdivision in his “ Novara Diptera,” 
p. 116 (1868), and, eighteen years later, I have added my mite of 
suggestions in the chapter on Bombyliidae in the Biol. Centr. Amer. 
Diptera (1886), p. 75-162. 
One of Loew’s favorite subjects was the family Dolichopodidae. 
As I have not made a thorough and independent study of this 
family, I shall confine myself here to bringing together a few liter¬ 
ary data which may be useful in future. 
Loew’s last and principal work on this family is contained in the 
second volume of the “Monographs of North American Diptera,” 
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, January, 1864. The volume 
had already gone through the press when a Supplement came in 
from Loew, containing descriptions of some new species sent to him 
by me in the meantime, and also a chapter of “ General remarks on 
the generic characters.” This Supplement will be found at the end 
of the volume, accompanied by a footnote signed by me (p. 321). 
This publication offers the most complete and matured exposition 
of Loew’s views on the classification of the Dolichopodidae. 
The family (loc. cit ., p. 14) is divided into two large divisions, 
distinguished from each other by a single character: the presence, 
or absence, of short hairs on the upper side of the first joint of the 
antennae. The consequence of this subdivision is that the genus 
Argyra Macq. is cut in two: the larger part of it appears (loc. cit.') 
in the first division, as Gen. XIV, Argyra , and the rest in the second 
division, as Gen. XX VI, Leucostola. On p. 151 of the same volume, 
under the heading of Leucostola , we find this statement: “The 
close relationship of the genus Leucostola to that of Argyra can 
be easily perceived by a comparison of their characters. There is 
scarcely any difference between them, but that the first joint of the 
antennae of Leucostola is entirely without any hair, while in Argyra 
it is distinctly covered with hair.” Such a statement contains in 
itself a condemnation of the subdivision proposed by Loew for the 
family! What process of reasoning may have induced Loew to 
