328 [Berliner Eiitomolog. Zeitschrift Bd. XU, Jahrg. 1896, Heft IV.] 



On the terms Calypteratae and 



Acalypteratae, Calypta and Calyptra, 



as they have been used in Dipterology. 



(A Siii)plement to my article: Notice on the terms tegula, 



antitegula, squama and alula in the Berl. Ent, 



Zeitschr. 1896, p. -285-288), 



by 



C R. Osten Sacken. 



In my Notice on the terms tegula etc. I also nientioned 

 the terms calypta and calyptra, which had been used by Robineau- 

 Desvoidy and Rondani, but it did not occur to me, at that time, 

 that these terms might be liable to enter into competition, in English 

 publications, with the other terms discussed by me, and for this 

 reason I gave them but a passing notice. 



In a recent criticism of my paper, publisbed by an authority in 

 Dipterology in the London Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, 

 Febr. 1896, p. 29, the following question israised: „These divisional 

 terms {Calypteratae and Acalypteratae) have been generally adop- 

 ted; why, then, have the names ceased to be applied to the organs 

 themselvcs?" 



This (juestion induced me to examine the history of these terms 

 more in detail, and I shall now communicate the result. For tlic 

 benelit of those to whom the Ent. M. M., is not accessible, I reprint 

 the Said article in an appendix (Note I). As, in the March numbcr 

 of tho same periodical, no less an authority than Dr. D. Sharp 

 vindicated my views most emphatically, any further controversy be- 

 comes unnecessary, and I considor the prescnt paper merely as a 

 contribution to tho history of entomological literature. 



I. Robineau-Desvoidy (1830) divided bis Myodaircs into 

 nine groiips, which he called families (gentes), and the tirst of 

 these, from the large size of their squamae, he called Calypteratae. 



