128 
LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST 
Another exploit of the same kind is related in the article, 
“ Ueber die, etc., auf der Ziegelwiese bei Halle beobachteten 
Dipteren” (in the same Zeitschr. gesammt. Naturw ., 1864, p. 377- 
396). Like the preceding article, this was written for the edifi¬ 
cation and encouragement of the same Saxo-Thiiringian Natural 
History Society. Loew takes care to explain at great length the 
most unfavorable conditions under which, in July, 1864, he made 
four forenoon excursions in a limited locality (“ Ziegelwiese ”) 
near Halle; two of these excursions lasted about three hours, the 
two others only one hour; in all, he spent eight hours upon them. 
During this comparatively short time he captured one hundred and 
eighty-five species, which make an average of twenty-two species an 
hour. But, as it appears from Loew’s account that of many species 
he took more than one specimen (of Tetanocera halensis, sp. n., he 
took teii), the whole booty represents an almost incredible amount 
of work ! And this work was performed by a man convalescent 
from a severe illness (“ eben iiberstandene schwere Krankheit”), 
and debilitated by daily salt baths (“der angegriffene Zustand, in 
welchen mich taglich gebrauchte Soolbader versetzten ”). 
In a letter to me (23d April, 1879), Zeller invited me to join him in an excur¬ 
sion to the “paradise of flies,” as he called it, Bergiin in Switzerland, and added 
the following good-natured allusion to Loew’s passion for bagging as many flies as 
possible : “With this invitation I do not connect any arriere pensde, as Loew used 
to do when he happened to invite me to accompany him on an entomological ex¬ 
cursion. I will not use you in a lepidopterological capacity for the purpose of 
helping me to reach the number of one thousand , which I expect to be the total 
number of the Lepidoptera occurring in that locality.” 
Concerning Loew’s accuracy in recognizing species described by 
other authors, — in other words, his capacity for determining Dip- 
tera, — I am prevented from having any opinion (as 1 have expressed 
it above, p. 104) in consequence of my want of a special knowledge 
of the European fauna. Schiner, in this respect, has more than 
once published remarks that deserve attention in regard to the 
arbitrariness and untrustworthiness of some of Loew’s changes in 
the adopted nomenclature, and especially on his reviving very 
doubtful specific names introduced by older authors. One of such 
articles of Schiner will be found in the Verh. zool.-bot. Gesellsch., 
Wien, 1872, p. 63 sqq., on the synonymies of some Empidae and 
