172 
BRAUER AND MIK 
Conscious of his failure, Brauer, in his “ Report,” attempts to 
save at least his subdivision of the order Diptera into two sub¬ 
orders, Orthorrliapha and Cyclorrhapha , which he considered as a 
great discovery. As I had pointed out the expediency of adopting 
three suborders, instead of two, Brauer had to attack me. He did 
so without once mentioning my name, in the following pompous 
but obscure passage ( [loc . cit., p. 346) : — 
“ Die gefundenen Thatsachen werden standhalten ; denn sie werden 
dadurch nicht umgestossen, dass jemand auf Grundlage ganz derselben 
Charaktere drei oder mehr Gruppen festhiilt und in der Einbildung lebt, 
ein neues System zu machen, indeni er die Schlussstriche der Gruppen ver- 
mehrt. Ein System muss sich aus der Untersuchung der Formen ergeben, 
nicht aus willkiirlichen Abstractionen des Geistes, und das Wahre wird 
durch die Nattirlichkeit desselben bekraftigt.” 
“ Mit der Einteilung der Dipteren in Orthorrliapha und Cyclorrhapha 
deckt sich die von Weismann acceptirte Einteilung nach den extremsten 
Formen : Typus Culex und Typus Muscat 
The following is an attempt at an a peu pres translation: “ The discovered facts 
will remain; they will not be upset when somebody adopts three or more groups 
based upon exactly the same characters, in the vain conceit of having founded a 
new system by merely multiplying the lines of division between the groups. A 
system must be the result of the study of forms, and not of arbitrary abstractions 
of the mind; what is true will then be strengthened by its appearing natural.” 
“ The division of Diptera in Orthorrliapha and Cyclorrhapha coincides with the 
division adopted by Weismann, based upon the two extreme forms: the type of 
Culex and the type of Musca .” 
I am not aware that the first part of the above passage, intended 
as a criticism of my method of classification, can be fairly accepted 
as such. As to the second part it contains most decidedly an argu¬ 
ment for my subdivision, and not for that of Brauer. My Nemocera 
vera ( Culicidae , Chironomidae , Tipulidae,e tc.) represent indeed the 
type of Culex. But my Nemocera anomala ( Bibio , Simulium, 
Blepharocera, llhyphus, Orphnephild ), with their holoptic heads, 
well-developed pulvilli, etc., do not reproduce that type in the 
least! The rest of Brauer’s Orthorrliapha — that is, the great 
majority of them ( Tahani , Bomhylii , Asili, etc.) — have nothing to 
do with the type of Culex , and reduce Brauer’s assertion ad 
ahsurdum ! 
I maintain my conviction that “ the true end of classification is 
