BRAUER AND MIK 
175 
a regrettable vanity. Mik gradually grew up in his own self¬ 
esteem as a critic, and allowed himself to express opinions and to 
lay down rules which far exceeded his intellectual endowment. 
He thus became guilty, as I am going to show, of many untenable 
assertions, and involved in glaring inconsistencies. 
Under the general headings of “ Dipterologische Notizen” 
( Wiener Ent. Zeit ., 1883, p. 34, 64), and later of “ Dipterologische 
Miscellen ” ( Wiener Ent. Zeit. from 1886 up to 1900, the year of 
Mile's death), Mik published more than two hundred disconnected, 
often long-winded notices, criticisms, observations, corrections, etc., 
of every kind, of which, from time to time, he gave a list 
(“ Inhaltsiibersicht ”). Supposing even that the multitude of facts, 
thus offered, are useful and trustworthy (which is by no means 
certain), the difficulty alone of getting access to them makes them 
almost useless. In the “Introduction” to this “Record” (p. 18) 
I said: “ Entomological literature would become intolerable if it 
were considered every one’s duty to criticize and contradict in 
print the many errors which continually rise to the surface.” Mik 
has been a sinner in this respect, and the reproach of egotism 
cannot be withheld from him. 
The same defect of obnoxious self-assertion appears in the habit 
of Mik of introducing a multitude of generic names for the sake of 
having the pleasure of appending his mihi to them. As the fauna 
of central Europe, Mik’s specialty, did not offer him many legitimate 
opportunities for exercising this fancy, he had recourse to two 
expedients: the first of them consisted in the unnecessary sub¬ 
division of well-established genera. In Mik’s “ Dipterologische 
Untersuchungen ” (Vienna, 1878) tivelve new genera of Dulicliopo- 
didae are introduced, with the following preamble: “ Occupied 
with a revision of the Dolichopodidae I take occasion to introduce 
several new genera, which I make public in the following pages, 
before the publication of the other results of my revision.” Mik 
has never published this promised “ Revision,” and thus his genera 
remained incompletely defined. 
In the Verh. zool.-hot. Gesellsch., Wien, 1881, p. 320-327, the genus 
Clinocera , which, upon Mik’s own showing (ibid., p. 320), con¬ 
tained at that time only forty palaearctic species, was subdivided 
