190 
TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS OF ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY 
the study of nature; it will afford a proof of the difficulties and the inex¬ 
perience of my first steps; it will bear witness to a young, vigorous breath, 
which did not recoil before the amplitude, or the breadth, of any turn of 
sentence (‘d’un souffle jeune et vigoureux, qui ne reculait devant l’ampleur 
ni la largeur d’aucune periode’). 1 But this last book, the manifest 
(‘ irrecusable ’) progeny of a mature age, will show more moderation in 
its progress; it will replace brilliancy by solidity, it will contain more of 
zoology than of natural history. It will please less, but it will be more 
profitable, because it will show a better understanding of the conditions 
exacted by Nature from those who are eager to apprehend her. One has a 
difficult task to accomplish if one has had the misfortune to hit upon 
a zoological family of the extent and of the infinite ramifications of which 
he had, at the outset, no adequate conception ! To be able to mark off 
both ends of one’s career by the prosecution and the reproduction of the 
same work is an advantage that but few naturalists have enjoyed. It is 
the result of a whole life consecrated to the same study. It bears witness 
to a rare spirit of patience, of perseverance, and of abnegation, conditions 
indispensable for such an undertaking. I can therefore affirm, with some 
pride, that I have resolutely faced all obstacles which I met in the 
accomplishment of my work.” 
This effusion of feeling continues for some pages in the same 
strain, but I have given enough of it to prove the great importance 
Rob.-Desvoidy attached to the progress achieved in his second 
work. As I have never paid special attention to the Muscidae , 
I am incompetent to pronounce any opinion upon the reality and 
upon the extent of this progress. Professor Brauer, in his “ Be- 
merkungen zu Osten-Sacken's Rejoinder,” etc. ( Berl . Ent. Zeit ., 
1894, p. 238, at bottom) has this passage: “We have tried to un¬ 
derstand bis [Rob.-Desvoidy’s] descriptions as much as possible. 
No other dipterologist has made such an extensive use of Robineau’s 
posthumous work as we have, and it seems to us that our work 
will l >e of great use for the understanding of Robineau's writings.” 
This may be so, but I have not found in MM. Brauer and Bergen- 
stamm’s volumes any general statement about the progress achieved 
by Rob.-Desvoidy between his two principal works; and such a 
statement, in this case, was essential in order to prove that Rob.- 
Desvoidy had told the truth about his progress. 
1 I am translating the peculiar style of Rob.-Desvoidy as faithfully as I can. 
