ey GrAvl Avy OG te bw On OUR EB NeD Al, AUN DS © Ure 
ASlLA rit C Ne M OCH RA: 
by E. BRUNETTI. 
INTRODUCTION. 
Van Der Wulp’s “ Catalogue of the Diptera of South Asia”’ 
(1896) has been the only one available since its publication, and 
the want of a more up-to-date work has probably been felt by all 
workers in this somewhat neglected order of insects. The present 
effort is, so far as the first suborder goes, an endeavour to fill the 
breach pro tempore, for the study of oriental diptera is very obvi- 
ously still in its infancy. 
The arrangement of families and subfamilies is the one that 
appears to me most natural, and the nomenclature adopted is that 
which has, with few exceptions, been used by the leading diptero- 
logists of the past three quarters of a century. The opportunity 
may here be taken to state my unshakeable adherence to both the 
present classification and nomenclature. The continual shuffling 
of names under the guise of priority is a wholly unnecessary 
handicap to effective study, and the only way to establish finality 
is to retain the nomenclature which has been found satisfactory 
by practically all the greatest writers on diptera. Osten Sacken 
and Verrall openly confessed to ‘‘continuity before priority’’ and 
I cannot but whole-heartedly agree with them in the best interests 
of the science itself. 
As has been pointed out by others besides myself, Meigen’s 
paper of 1800 (which has been the chief cause of the suggested 
general overturning of the principal generic and family names 
throughout the order by the strict priorist) was not binomial, no 
species being given as representative of the genera described. This 
fact, therefore, in itself entirely invalidates its acceptance under 
the customary laws of zoological literature, and the adoption of 
the names contained in it seems to suggest merely a morbid crav- 
ing for continual change. 
It is not out of place to recall Verrall’s view that it is incum- 
bent upon us to accept the methods of the writers of old and the 
etiquette of their times. Meigen’s ‘“ 1800 paper” as it has been 
called was wholly preparatory ; the author himself almost entirely 
ignored it in his later works, and his right to rename his genera 
was never questioned by his confréres at the time he wrote. 
My own fixed policy is to retain the nomenclature as em- 
ployed by the principal authors of the last century, Schiner, Loew 
Meigen, Macquart, Walker, Osten Sacken, Verrall and their con- 
temporaries, and family and subfamily names should be held in- 
26674 
