June, 1914.] Walton: Work of Daniel W. Coquillett. 163 



tion to this line of investigation with his usual exuberance and lack 

 of restraint. This has led him into some of the most egregious 

 errors of his long career. Undoubtedly the most daring of these is 

 the attempted erection of some nine genera comprising eleven species 

 based, as he says, "on the reproductive, egg and first maggot struc- 

 tures."' But, it should be explained, at the time these descriptions are 

 published, it is admitted there are before him nothing v^^hatever but 

 the viscera of the specimens involved in the discussion. Further- 

 more, the location of the remainder of the carcasses is unknown to 

 him ! They may be, according to his statement, " at the Gypsy Moth 

 Laboratory," or in " the National Museum collection " or . . . they 

 may not be in existence for all that Mr. Townsend knows, because he 

 has been located thousands of miles distant from these places for 

 years. But worst of all, no description whatever of the external 

 character of these flies is afforded us. Even Francis Walker was 

 never guilty of an offence against entomological science equal to this. 

 Of course the designations included in this category cannot stand as 

 valid names, because they are based on fragments of the insides (to 

 use a colloquialism) of insects, the external appearance of which is 

 unknown to science. 



It would be easy to cover many pages in criticism of Mr. Town- 

 send's recent work on the Muscoidean flies. Enough has been said 

 however to warn the student not to regard it too seriously. It is to 

 be hoped that the disorderly array of information and misinforma- 

 tion which he has been guilty of publishing wnll not prevent young 

 workers from entering the field of tachinology. If we keep in mind 

 the fact that our work in systematic entomology will surely be suc- 

 cessful in precisely that degree to which it proves practicable, we 

 shall not go far astray. 



It may contain the quintessence of wisdom and constitute a para- 

 gon of ingenuity, but if these qualities are not made comprehensible 

 to our fellow workers, we may feel assured that our work will suffer 

 accordingly. 



The systematist who cannot see things as they are, or tell the 

 unvarnished truth regarding what he sees, would better not have 

 been born in so far as the interests of science are concerned. Some 

 things have been said in this discussion which may seem harsh to the 

 person most concerned. If so, I ask his pardon for having said them. 



