CAMILLO RONDANI AND HIS RELATIONS WITH LOEW 
149 
hardly find any followers.” And nevertheless, the same Loew, 
better informed three years later (probably by Winnertz, with 
whom he corresponded at that time), but without any reference to 
his previous statement, said (“ Dipterologische Beitriige,” Yol. IV, 
p. 12, 1850): “He (Rondani) divides the Gallicolae into two fam¬ 
ilies, Lestreminae and Cecidomyiinae; although the formation of 
the names cannot be justified” [why?], “it must be acknowledged 
that he has correctly recognized the two principal groups of the 
family .” More than that, in the “ Monographs of North American 
Diptera,” Yol. I, p. 7 (1862), Loew adopted, without the slightest 
acknowledgment to Rondani , exactly the same subdivision, based 
upon the very characters which Rondani had discovered more than 
twenty years before, and which , at that time , Loew had rejected:! 
The same characters were reproduced by Winnertz, in his paper 
on Lestreminae (1869). 
The arbitrary substitution by Loew of the name Anaretinae (for 
Lestreminae Rond.) was unfortunate. In the Stett. Rut. Zeit., 
1845, p. 395-398, Loew had described Anarete alhipennis , sp. n. 
(Germany), and decided, after a long and verbose discussion, that, 
on account of its venation, it should be considered as related to 
the Lestreminae , etc. In this Loew was right, because his Anarete 
(as was proved afterwards) was not the Anarete of Ilaliday at all, 
but a Cecidomyia. Haliday’s Anarete is a Scatopse, as Curtis had 
recognized it long ago (“ Guide to an arrangement of British 
Insects,” 2d ed., 1837) ; Winnertz and Schiner, perhaps indepen¬ 
dently of Curtis, put it in the same position, where it undoubtedly 
belongs (as I have shown in Berl. Ent. Zeit ., 1892, p. 451). 
The concluding passage of Loew’s review (1847) is evidently 
meant for an encouragement for Rondani. Loew promises him 
soon to publish a critical review of several of his oivn (Loew’s) 
early publications, and adds: “ It is only just to apply the same 
rule to one’s self as to others ; truth must prevail above everything, 
and all disguise or palliation of error should be avoided.” This 
was certainly an excellent declaration of principle; unfortunately 
the promised article No. II never appeared, although, in the pre¬ 
vious publications of Loew, on the very subjects in which he had 
exercised his criticism against Rondani (the relationships of Ceci- 
