BRAUER AND MIK 
167 
1888, p. 226-227), concludes thus: “ To return to Pty diopter a, I 
recommend the comparison of the figures of the wings of Culex, 
Dixa , and Ptychoptera in Van der Wulp’s ‘ Diptera Neerlandica,’ 
Tab. X, f. 2, 9, and 10. A glance at these figures shows us, that 
the wing of Dixa has the greatest resemblance to that of Culex , 
and that the wing of Pty diopter a discloses a near relationship to 
that of Dixa. And Dixa is a gnat and not a cranejly ! ” It seems 
natural to ask, why Mik recommends the study of a plate of Van 
der Wulp, and not that of the natural objects ? The reason is this : 
Brauer, at the end of his paper, “ Vergleichende Untersuchungen 
des Fliigelgeaders der Dipteren-Familien nach Adolph’s Theorie ” 
( Wien Denksdiriften , 1882), introduced the following singular 
“ captatio benevolentiae ” : “As the best existing figures of wings, 
which are also applicable to Adolph’s theory, we can recommend 
those of Van der Wulp in his ‘Diptera Neerlandica.’ ” Evidently 
Mik wanted to please Brauer in referring to these same plates. 1 
In 1890, a change seems to have taken place in the disposition 
of Mik towards Brauer, in consequence of the publication in that 
year of Brauer’s first instalment of his Muscaria Schizometopa. I 
noticed this change in his correspondence with me, and it is also 
evident in Mik’s references to Brauer’s new publication (in the 
Wiener Ent. Zeit ., 1890, p. 155 and 159 ; 1892, p. 55) ; in the acri¬ 
monious reply by Brauer and Bergenstamm (ibid., 1892, p. 108) ; 
and in the rejoinder of Mik ( ibid ., p. 110-113). 
It is at that time that Mik, in an unguarded moment, praised 
the systematic essay I had published in the Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1892 
(130, 1892) in the following terms (letter of December 10,1892): “ I 
thank you for sending me your interesting systematic study. It 
suits me better than Brauer’s publications on the same subject. 
There are some points, of course, in which everybody will not 
agree with you. The system itself is certainly more natural, and 
less one-sided than that of Brauer. I rejoice in the expectation of 
the second part,” etc. 2 
1 Similar efforts of Mik in favor of Brauer will be pointed out in my List 
( 93 , 1883 ), where he supported Brauer’s astounding assertions concerning the rela¬ 
tionship between Scenopinus and the Mjdaidae. 
2 “ Ich danke fiir die Zusendung Hirer interessanten systematischcn Studie. Sie 
conveniert mir mehr als Brauer’s Arbeiten liber das gleiche Subject. Naturlich sind 
