BRAUER AND MIK 
169 
well as material, for Brauer. Loew wrote me (October 1,1858) : “ In 
dipterology, we have nothing new to offer. The greatest interest 
is afforded by the minute and thorough investigations of Brauer 
in Vienna on the European Oestridae. Zeal, ability, and entire 
freedom from all other preoccupations are combined in him, and 
enable him to produce work of the highest excellence. The num¬ 
ber of the known European species has now risen to twenty, and 
probably more are to follow. One of the most interesting among 
the new species comes from Russia, and was for a long time known 
oidy in a single specimen in my collection. It was discovered 
many years ago by Pastor Biittner, of Schleck, in Curland ( Ga- 
strophilus lativentris Loew).” 
Those who want to appreciate Brauer at his best, should read, 
as a specimen of his powers, the account of the minute and per¬ 
severing observations on the common bot-fly of the horse ( Gastro- 
philus equi ) in the “ Monographic der Oestriden,” p. 56-66, 1863. 
In the course of these studies, Brauer came to investigate, and to 
describe with more accuracy than had been done before, the mode 
of pupation of the Diptera, and of the emergence of the imago 
(compare ibid., p. 32-34; and also Brauer’s communication to 
Schiner, Verb, zool.-bot. Gesellsch., Wien, 1864, p. 209). He pro¬ 
posed very happily chosen names for the two forms of transforma¬ 
tion which he had defined. Although his ideas were criticized by 
an experienced dipterologist, Dr. Gerstacker, I adopted them at 
once, for, having bred many Diptera from larvae, I was fully 
prepared for his generalization. But Brauer went too far when, 
later, he imagined he had discovered the two primary subdivisions 
of the Diptera. His Cyclorrhapha with their peculiar barrel¬ 
shaped pupa were long ago defined by Latreille and called Athe- 
ricera (Fam. Naturelles, 1825, p. 425). A still greater error of 
Brauer was the suppression, as suborder, of the Nemocera Latr., 
which was even a better defined suborder than the Cyclorrhapha. 
For this reason, in my new subdivision, instead of two suborders, I 
adopted three , and gave them double names, borrowed from La¬ 
treille and from Brauer; these names had the advantage of being 
descriptive of the characters derived from the mode of transforma¬ 
tion of the larva, as well as from the antennae, the principal organ 
