346 C. B. Osten Sacken: 



words iivSäo) (to be wct) and fivSo^ (mute), ünder such circuni- 

 stances only two alternative suppositious, it seenis to ine, are 

 possible: either we must suppose that the autlior has introduced 

 what tlie French call „un nom sans aucune signification", or we 

 niust have recourse to sonie Greek word that is nearest to the Greek- 

 sounding „Mydas". That Fabricius in using the expression „to 

 bo wet", niay have meant an allusion to the peculiar transverse folds 

 which distinguish the wings of the genus, does not seem to me a 

 too far fetched assumption; at any rate such an Interpretation is not 

 niore artiiicial than that proposed by Dumeril and accepted not 

 only by Wiedemann, but as it seenis, also by sonie modern authors. 

 According to Wiedemann (Mon. Gen. Midarum, p. 32), Dumeril 

 (Dict. Sc. Nat. Vol. XXXI, p. 47 and XXXIV, p. 1) declared the 

 name Mydas to be „orthographically incorrect" and amended it into 

 Mi das, because, according to him, Fabricius intended an allusion 

 to King Midas in Phrygia, whom Apollo gratified vvith asses ears, 

 the occasion for the allusion consisting in the remarkably long an- 

 tennae of the genus. Such an opinion cannot of course be directly 

 refuted on the alleged grounds; but as soon as the emendation inio 

 Midas is proposed, it would secm inore natural to derive it from 

 ///(Vrt^-, an insoct mentioned by Theophrastus, which devours beans 

 and other leguminous vegetables. But after all, there is no necessity 

 for such hypotheses to justify a change of name in the present case; 

 it is seifevident that the Fabrician name Mydas, adopted byLa- 

 treille, Macquart and Westwood is the only legitimate name, 

 by right of priority." 



I regret not to be able to agree with Dr. Gerstaecker either 

 in bis facts, or in the deductions he draws from them. It seems to 

 me much more natural, in connection with Mydas, to think of a 

 missi)elling of the name of King Midas, than of a derivation from 

 somc little-known Greek word. In fact the majority of Diptcrologists 

 have taken this view, and Dr. Gerstaecker had no right to refer 

 to Latreille, Macquart and Westwood in the way he did. I 

 shall give the reasons for my Statements in detail. 



Latreille, Precis etc. p. 166 (1796) has Midas Fabr.; it is 

 only later. in the Hist. Nat. etc. Vol. III (1802), in the Genera (1809) 

 and in bis other works that he followed Fabricius, in calling the 

 genus Mydas. The reason is not given, but it seems evident that 

 the iirst Impression of Latreille was that Mydas was a lapsus 

 calami on the part of Fabricius. 



Macquart has Mydas from merc ignorance of Greek, and not 

 on any principle of priority. This is proved by the passage in the 



