178 
BRAUER AND MIK 
Bigot,” in the Wiener Ent. Zeit., 1897, p. 115. Mik amends this 
name into “ Eurinomyia mild ( nom . nov.fi” He acknowledges at 
the same time that Schiner, thirty-three years before, in his “Cata- 
logns Systematicus,” etc., 1864, p. 108, had proposed the name 
Anasimyia for the same generic concept. It would have been 
proper for Mik to retain this name, but he rejected it, under the 
futile pretence “ that it was a mere Catalogue name ” (“ ein blosser 
Catalogsname ”), which is by no means the case! Schiner (“ Fauna 
Austriaca,” Vol. I, p. 338,1862) had isolated the two species Helo- 
philus transfugus Linn, and H. lineatus F. at the very beginning of 
his analytical table of this genus by the character: “ Lower half of 
the face projecting, cone-shaped, and pointed in profile.” Two 
years later in his “ Catalogue of Austrian Diptera,” which contained 
nothing but names and no definitions, Schiner had a perfect right 
to propose a name for a generic concept which he had defined before , 
the more so as he referred to it the two typical species connected 
with it in his previous publication. As to Bigot, when he received 
from a friend a single female specimen of Helophilus lineatus F., 
captured north of Paris, he did not even recognize this species in it, 
but, being struck by the projection of its face, not unlike that of the 
genus Rhingia , he immediately described it as Eurymyia rhingioides , 
gen. et sp. nov. It is in this blunder of Bigot that Alik found 
another opportunity for a mild of his own (compare above), and for 
discarding under a false pretence the generic name Anasimyia 
proposed long ago by Schiner! 1 
Mik’s general criticisms of the publications of other authors 
abound in instances of arbitrariness and egotism. On one side, 
popularity is courted by profuse compliments and “ captationes 
benevolentiae ” towards authors not deserving them; on the other 
side, most unreserved criticisms, and sometimes in very bad taste, 
are showered upon deserving entomologists who had the misfortune 
to disagree with Mik. In such cases Mik often displays the prevail¬ 
ing defects of his style, diffuseness and verbosity. A redundant 
and unjust example of this ( Verh. zool.-bot. Gesellsch., Wien, 1886, 
p. 479-483) is directed against Dr. Dziedzicki’s method of utilizing 
1 Mr. G. H. Verrall’s account of this case in his “ Syrphidae,” London, 1901, p. 524, 
is incorrect and requires emendation. 
