124 
LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST 
adopt it? In the paper: “Die Familie der Dolichopodiden” 
(“Neue Beitrage,” Vol. 1857), the earliest monographic pub¬ 
lication of Loew on this family, I find a passage about this same 
character which, nevertheless, does not afford the desired expla¬ 
nation; on p. 39, line 12, in discussing Argyra , Loew says: 
“ Among the common species, Argyra vestita forms an exception 
in the bareness of the upper side of the first joint of the antennae. 
In all other characters ... it agrees so well with the typical 
species of Argyra , that I would have willingly (‘gerne’) left it 
in the same genus. The bareness or hairiness of the first joint of 
the antennae is such an important character for the often difficult 
determination of female specimens, that species which do not agree 
in this character cannot possibly be generically united. It becomes 
therefore necessary to form a separate genus for this species, for 
which I accept the very characteristic name Leucostola proposed by 
Mr. Haliday.” 
The weakness of this reasoning is evident. Should it even be 
proved that the character in question is available for the genus 
Argyra , it does not follow that it can, without any further discus¬ 
sion, be applied to the whole family of Dolichopodidae. Neverthe¬ 
less, four years later, we find this character adopted in the monograph 
of the North American Dolichopodidae, published in German 
(“Neue Beitrage,” Vol. VIII, 1861, p. 1), and afterwards in the 
Synoptic Table of the English edition of the same monograph 
(“Monographs of North American Diptera,” Vol. II, 1864), as I 
have shown above. Schiner (“Fauna Austriaca,” Vol. I, p. 188) 
was therefore quite right in not adopting the genus Leucostola. 
In the collection of letters addressed by Haliday to Loew on dipterological sub¬ 
jects (and now in possession of Mr. Veri-all, see above, p. 51), the discussions about 
Dolichopodidae occupy a considerable space. In a letter dated from Dublin, Nov. 
22, 1856, I found the following passage, which I reproduce exactly as it stands, 
without quite understanding its meaning (the italics are Halidav’s): “ I scarcely 
expect that the character of the naked or pubescent 1st joint of the antennae will 
seem to you of the weight I have ventured to give it, but will ask of you to ex¬ 
amine the result , as to the group it defines, and tell me if it does not indicate pretty 
truly a series of affinities which may be probably better defined by some other char¬ 
acter. I admit, one or two instances, already known to me, seem to militate against 
it, e. gr. Argyra vestita , separated in a different tribe from the rest of the genus as 
received, etc.” 
