TWO PRINCIPAL WORKS OF ROBINEAU-DESVOIDY 
191 
Rob.-Desvoidy’s work of 1863 was not quite finished when, 
after his death, it came into the hands of his editors. They have 
introduced into it some interpolations and changes in order to fill 
up the blanks they found in it. It belongs to the critic to discern 
such additions. In my paper, “ On the Terms Calypteratae,” 
etc. (in the Berl. Bnt. Zeit., 1896, p. 329 and p. 335-336), I 
have shown that the term Acalypterata, introduced in the 
posthumous work on page 81, was an interpolation of the 
editors, and that it has never been used by Rob.-Desvoidy in 
his works. In examining the same volume since, I found that 
the generalities concerning the “ Entomobies ” (p. 86 to p. 91, 
down to line 9 from top) are word for word reproduced from 
the “ Myodaires ” (1830). What follows upon them (lines 
10 and 11) is apparently also an interpolation for the purpose 
of introducing the statement about synonymy in the footnote. 
The passage reads, “ It is unnecessary to add that I have given 
all possible care to the exactitude of the synonymy.” And the 
ominous footnote, appended to this passage, reads thus: “We 
shall take care that the gaps left in the manuscript on the sub¬ 
ject of synonymy, and which the author’s death alone prevented 
him from filling, are filled in a manner entirely satisfactory to 
entomologists. Therefore all the descriptions of species without 
synonymy should be considered as new, and as not having been 
mentioned anywhere before.” It is evident to me that the whole 
interval between pages 86 and 91 was a blank, left unfilled by 
Rob.-Desvoidy, and that the editors filled it by simply intro¬ 
ducing the corresponding passage from the earlier edition. Rob.- 
Desvoidy would certainly not have reproduced, word for word, the 
same generalities after thirty years of renewed studies! Rob.- 
Desvoidy’s text begins again on page 91, with line 12: “ L’historique 
des Myodaires,” etc., and his picturesque style will be easily recog¬ 
nized. Here he gives vent to his wrath against Meigen , who, 
having been influenced by Macquart , had entirely ignored Rob.- 
Desvoidy’s existence. I quote this short but pregnant passage: — 
“Nothing is more pitiable than this elaboration [of Meigen’s 
Tachinae, in Yol. VII, 1835], which had no reason to exist 
(‘ qui n’avait pas sa raison d’etre’). But it was necessary, above 
