166 
BRAUER AND MIK 
his paper, “ Zu Osten Sacken’s Chaetotaxie der Dipteren ” ( Verh. 
zool.-bot. Gresellsch., Wien, 1882), provoked the ire of Braner. But 
when in the same year my criticism of Braner’s paper on Notacantha 
appeared (89,1882), Mik felt that he had to choose between us. He 
stood by Braner, for the very plausible reason that it was to his 
advantage to be on good terms with the very sensitive Custodian 
of the dipterological department of the Museum in Vienna. 
Conscious of having hurt Brauer’s feelings by his publication on 
my Chaetotaxy, he did his utmost to atone for this failing. 
Brauer’s paper on the Notacantha (1882), which I had demolished 
by my criticism, Mik praised to the skies in an elaborate article 
( Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1882, p. 176-177). Of Brauer’s system of 
Diptera he became a staunch supporter, especially of the group 
Encephala, and of the position of Pty diopter a within it. He be¬ 
came most ingenious in his arguments. In the Wiener Ent. Zeit., 
1882, p. 819, he said: “ Brauer has satisfactorily proved that 
Ptychoptera must be excluded from the Tipulidae ; any unpreju¬ 
diced observer of a species of Ptychoptera in life will at once 
recognize in its whole behavior (‘ in ihren ganzen Benehmen ’) an 
evident resemblance to the Mycetophilidae (!!) and not to the 
Tipulidae. What is the use of this persistent resistance against 
facts that are obvious? ” etc. Mik would not have dared to utter 
such an absurdity, if he had seen the flight of the American 
genus Bittacomorplia , which, although it belongs to the section 
Ptychopterina, is, in its mode of flight, unlike any known Tipulid 
or Mycetophilid! 
With regard to Beling, Mik observes ( Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1886, 
p. 287) : “ He still continues to place Ptychoptera among the 
Tipulidae ! ” 
Mr. Verrall’s “List of the British Tipulidae” (Ent. Monthly 
May., 1886-1888) suggests to Mik the same remark ( Wiener Ent. 
Zeit., 1889, p. 136) : “What astonishes me is, that Mr. Verrall, in 
his ‘ List of Tipulidae ,’ comprises also the Dixidae and Ptycho- 
pteridae ; — probably from mere deference (‘Pietat’) for the old, 
but quite unjustifiable systematic position of these two families of 
Diptera eucephalad 
A whole page of discussion in another place ( Wiener Ent. Zeit., 
