176 
BKAUER AND MIK 
by him into nine genera. Among the alleged reasons for this un¬ 
necessary subdivision he has the following very questionable one: 
“ If I do not introduce these genera, sooner or later somebody else 
will! ” As an apology for the incompleteness of his definitions he 
promises a monograph of the genus, which he has in preparation 
(ibid., on p. 320 twice) ; a promise which, like the one mentioned 
above, he never kept. 
In my paper on Paracrocera Mik (Berl. Ent. Zeit., 1896, p. 323) 
I have shown that this genus, as well as Symplectomorpha Alik and 
Alloeoneurus Mik, are superfluous subdivisions, which merely tend to 
defeat the mnemonic purpose of classification. Olbiosyrphus Alik 
( Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1897, p. 66), it seems to me, belongs to the same 
category. By the way, in the “ Namenregister ” of the same volume, 
p. vii, in consequence of a lapsus calami the genus is called Olbio- 
gaster, a generic name introduced by me for a new form of Rhy- 
phus (Biol. Centr.-Amer. Diptera, p. 20). 
The other opportunity for introducing new names (generic as 
well as specific), and an occasion for the display of his mihVs, was 
afforded to Mik by the nomina bis lecta of other authors. Such 
opportunities were rather numerous, and it would be useless to re¬ 
produce all of them here. In the volume of the Wiener Ent. Zeit., 
1886, alone, I find Thamnodromia Mik (Empidae') proposed for 
Phyllodromia Zett., p.278; Lepidostola Mik (Syrphidae) for Lepi- 
domyia Loew, p. 279; Monoclona Mik (Mycetophilidae) for Stae- 
geria v. d. Wulp, p. 102; Allocotocera Mik (Mycetophilidae') for 
Eurycera Dziedz., 1887, p. 269; Microtricha Mik (Tachinidae) for 
Stylomyia v. d. Wulp, etc. 
Specific names, when found to be bis lecta, were, “ pour dorer la 
pilule,” dedicated, by Mik, according to the received custom, to the 
original author: Beckeri mild (ibid., 1894, p. 166), Eggeri mild 
(ibid., 1897, p. 66), v. cl. Wulpii mild (ibid., 1899, p. 143), Willis- 
tonii mihi (on the same page), Sharpii mild, Stroblii mild (ibid., 
1900, p. 148), etc. At the same time Mik, with a remarkable but 
quite characteristic inconsistency, praises Dr. C. Ivdrtesz “for hav¬ 
ing refrained from introducing new names for nomina bis lecta ” 
(“zu loben,dass er sich enthalten hat nom. b. 1 . umzutaufen,” ibid., 
1900, p. 224)! 
