BRAUER AND MIK 
165 
transverse Furrow, pointed out by Osten Sacken, is not homologous to that 
of the Tipulidae, as it corresponds to the anterior furrow of the thorax, 
that of the Tipulidae to the posterior one. Ptychoptera has all the charac¬ 
ters of the Eucephala.” 
Brauer, in this connection, always speaks of the genus Ptycho¬ 
ptera alone ; if he had examined the thorax of Tanyderus and Idio- 
plasta , which also belong to the section Ptycliopterina , he would 
have at once perceived that his pretended distinction between the 
anterior and posterior furrows has no foundation whatever. The 
mesothoracic suture, characteristic of the Tipulidae , is exactly in 
the same place in the section Ptycliopterina as in the other sections. 
The genus Ptychoptera has furrows which have nothing to do with 
that suture, but disguise it to an experienced eye. In Tanyderus 
and Idioplasta these deceptive furrows do not exist, and the meso¬ 
thoracic suture is distinctly visible at its usual place. 
Finally, Brauer protested against “ compilers of catalogues ” who, 
without further proof, permit themselves to introduce changes in 
the system, and upset the opinions of entomologists of “ established 
reputation''' 1 (“gewiegte Entomologen ”). 
The notion that Ptychoptera is not a Tipulid, and is related to 
the Culicidae, seems to have been a particular hobby of Brauer. 
He reverts to it on more than one occasion. In his article “ Ueber 
die Verwandtschaft und systematische Stellung der Blepharo- 
ceriden'’'’ (Wiener Ent. Zeit ., 1882, p. 1-4), a short paper which, 
by the way, abounds in very dubious assertions, 1 Brauer says: 
“ To the tribe Eucephala belong also the P ty diopter idae, a relation¬ 
ship which Osten Sacken has always contested, because he takes 
them for Tipulidae .” 
To sustain this proposition, Brauer adduces Adolph’s theory of 
the venation of Diptera (Wien Denkschriften , 1882, p. 94, at bottom), 
and also some allegations about the number of Malpighian vessels of 
Culex , Psyclioda , and Ptychoptera, the importance of which, in this 
particular case, is still questionable. Since 1882, the position of 
Mik, between Brauer and myself, became very difficult. In that year, 
1 It is refreshing, as well as instructive, to compare this article of Brauer with the 
six pages of Eduard Becher in the same volume of the Wiener Ent. Zeit., 
p. 49-54, modest in tone, but pregnant with facts most suggestive of future develop¬ 
ments. About the position of Phora, however, I cannot agree with Becher. 
