Contributions to tlie Study of the Liponeuridae Lw. 169 



Liponeuridae, hy Dr. F. Müller, Dewitz, and Wierzeijski, 

 were published in the same year 1881, and the discoveries were made 

 a Short time before, and quite independently of eacli other!') 

 The coincidence of scientific discoveries admits of a plausible ex- 

 planation in the simultaneous working of contemporaneous minds in 

 the same direction. But coincidences like those in question are the 

 more reniarkable as they seem to be due to mere chance. 



^) I insist upon the word independently, because, in a passage 

 in the Wien. Ent. Z. 1882, p. 2, at the top, Prof. Brauer flatters 

 himself with the illusion tliat bis short article in the „Zool. Anz." 

 1880 has put Dewitz and Wierzeijski on the track of their disco- 

 very. B. says: „I have no doubt that my article, and Dr. F. M. 

 paper in the „Kosmos" (1880) ealied the attention of observers to the 

 European species of these larvae, because in the autumn of the same 

 year, Dewitz, and soon after him Wierzeijski etc. discovered such 

 larvae." This illusion of B. is very easily disposed of: Dewitz has a 

 Postscript to bis paper (Berl. Ent. Z. 1881, p. 66), in which he says: 

 „This paper was already in the press, when I found short notices on 

 the early stages of the Blepharoceridae by Brauer, (Z. A.) and 

 F. Müller (Kosmos), both foreshadowing more detailed publications." 



On the other band, Wierzeijski (0 przeobrazenin muchy Lip. 

 brevirostris Lw.? Krakow, 1881) quotes Brauer's article in the Zool. 

 Anz. with ihe remark: „I had not seen this publication of Dr. 

 Brauer in March 1880, when, in July of the same year, I discovered 

 this curious metamorphosis." — From the fact that Dr. B. did not 

 take any notice of these passages of Dewitz and Wierzeijski, we 

 may safely infer that he has read their papers with very little attention, 

 or perhaps not read them at all. 



Postscript. The present paper was going through the press, 

 when I received a communication from G. H. Verrall, the principal 

 Contents of which I' have been able to incorporate in the proofsheets. 

 but of which, at the same time, it is necessary to give a separate notice. 



G. H, Verrall informs me, that Bigot's collection, now in bis 

 possession, contains a male specimen of Apistomyia, besides the 

 specimen which Bigot described as a male, but which in reality is a 

 female. This cf has distinctly ten-jointed anteunae, the last Joint 

 being more pointed than in Bigot's figure. Tho upper facets of 

 the eyes in this cf are much larger than the lower ones, while in 

 the Q the diiference is but slight. There is a stout anal ending of 

 the abdomen, with a large forceps, consisting of a pair of elongate 

 appendages, not unlike the forceps of Bleph. (Loew, 1877, Tab. I. 

 f. 4), although distinctly different. Finally. the ending of the nndulating 

 vein, near the anterior margin, is exactly as I described it above, 

 p. 157, line 18 from top, after seeing Bigot's other specimen. VerraH's 

 communication is accompanied by very good drawings of the ends of 

 the abdomens cf and $, of the antemia, and of the front part of 

 the wing. 



