132 
LOEW AS A DIPTEROLOGIST 
Of the excessive and sometimes confusing prolixity of some of 
Loew's descriptions of species, and of his style of writing in gen¬ 
eral, I have spoken before, in Chapter I, p. 32. 
About Loew’s unpardonable and studied disregard of his con¬ 
temporaries in dipterology, a disregard which proved very detri¬ 
mental to science, I have introduced detailed accounts in the 
present “ Record.” A list of references to such accounts will 
he found in my “ Introduction ” (p. 19). At the same time I have 
observed that “ the only secret motive of this idiosyncrasy that I 
can surmise is the consciousness of Loew that Nature had formed 
him for something better than describing Diptera.” And indeed it 
often occurred to me to apply to Loew the well-known exclamation 
of Dr. Johnson to Hannah More: “ Milton, Madam, was a genius 
that would cut a Colossus from a rock, but could not carve beads 
out of cherry-stones.” A satisfactory explanation, psychological, or 
perhaps pathological, of this idiosyncrasy of Loew I do not pretend 
to attempt, but I shall always maintain (“ Introduction,” p. 21) 
“ that, while condemning his injustice in the strongest terms, I do 
not mean to impugn his personal character as a man of truth and 
honor.” There have been other great men who have shown similar 
anomalies of character. Galileo, one of the master minds in sci¬ 
ence, was jealous of some of his contemporaries, especially of the 
great Kepler, whose discoveries and attempts at a correspondence 
he treated with studied neglect (compare the biography of Galileo, 
in Arago, Oeuvres, Vol. Ill, p. 261-262 ; Paris and Leipzig, 1859). 
In connection with the marked disregard of Loew towards his 
dipterological colleagues he was reproached, and, I think, with good 
reason, with not having been “an inspiring teacher,” and not hav¬ 
ing had followers, like Schiner. His supercilious and repellent 
manner, which I experienced myself at the outset (compare above, 
p. 29), may have disheartened the zeal of many novices, and even 
discouraged prominent talents. Who knows but that Zeller may 
have been influenced by Loew when, after a brilliant and promising 
debut , he suddenly abandoned dipterology? It belonged to a man 
like Zetterstedt, strong in his conviction of doing useful work, to 
continue it in his own way for fifteen years with commendable com¬ 
posure, in spite of Loew’s persistent disdain (compare my Chap- 
