BEAUER AND MIK 
173 
an easier survey of affinities , a temporary aid to memory. In space 
and time all divisions become convergent and finally confluent” 
(Berl. Bnt. Zeit., 1895, p. 160; also reproduced in my “Intro¬ 
duction,” p. 14). Brauer’s suborder Orthorrhapha , instead of 
being a help to memory, is, on the contrary, a confusing concept, as 
it tends to obliterate the breach between Macquart’s Nemocera and 
his Brachycera , a discontinuity which, as I have shown repeatedly, 
and lately in my “Introduction” (p. 11), is greater than that 
between the latter and Latreille’s Athericera (which correspond to 
Brauer’s Cyclorrhapha'). When Brauer, after Loew’s death in 
1879, began to consider himself as his natural successor, he was so 
little prepared for general dipterology that he was entirely un¬ 
acquainted with the existence of such a breach. As late as 1883, 
in his “Zweifl. d. K. Mus. in Wien,” Yol. Ill, 1883, p. 9 (in the 
middle) he has this passage: “ Let dipterologists, as a matter of 
convenience, continue to speak of Nemoeera and Brachycera , such 
natural groups do not exist, and it is impossible to define them 
with natural characters.” About this thesis Brauer wrote a long 
dissertation QSitzungsh. AJcad. Wiss., Wien, 1885, p. 385-413) 
which is rather heavy reading, and consists of a compilation of most 
startling propositions (for instance on p. 411 about the analogies in 
the venation of Rhyphus, Leptis , etc.). 
My three suborders are a reproduction of the arrangement of 
Latreille, and I believe to have done justice enough to Brauer in 
connecting his well-chosen names, descriptive of the early stages of 
these insects, with Latreille’s names, derived from the structure of 
the antennae. 
At the end of his “ Report ” (p. 347 at bottom), Brauer, who 
never forgave me my guilt of Chaetotaxy, could not help venting 
his spite once more in reiterating, like an unavoidable refrain , the 
concluding passage of his “Obituary of Mik ” ( Wiener But. Zeit., 
1901, p. 4) : “ The doctrine of the distribution of bristles has been 
in 1873 put in practice by Mik and Loew, — long before another 
invented for it the learned term Chaetotaxy ! ” (Compare above, 
p. 156.) 
Brauer avoids calling me by my name, as if it was that of the Evil One. Here 
be calls me another (“ ein anderer ”), and in a passage quoted above be speaks of 
