566 MODERN CLASSIFICATION OF INSECTS. 
Each of these tribes is subdivided into a great number of minor 
sections and an immense number of genera, founded in many instances 
upon very trivial characters. Another great objection to the work of 
Robineau Desvoidy consists in his negligence in not citing the works 
of Meigen and Fallen, and his continual substitution of his own new 
names for the long-established specific names of Linnzus and Fabricius. 
Latreille also (Régne An. tom. v. p. 509.) objects to the distribution 
proposed as above, with the exception of the group Calypterate, 
which he asserts to be equivalent to the first section of the family, 
which in his Familles Naturelles he had proposed under the name 
of Creophila. This assertion is net, however, correct, because Ro- 
bineau Desvoidy first introduced (and as it appears to me naturally) 
into this family and tribe, Stomoxys and the allied genera, which La- 
treille always arranged with Conops; and secondly, because R. Des- 
voidy also added to the Calypteratee the family Céstride, which 
Latreille always (and naturally) kept distinct. With these exceptions, 
the two groups are nearly identical. The Mesomyde R, D. also nearly 
correspond with Latreille’s 2d section, Anthomyzides. ‘The 3d group, 
Malacosome of #2. D., forms part of Latreille’s 4th section, Scatomy- 
zides; other portions of which last, together with Latreille’s 5th 
section, Dolichocera, form the Palomydz F. D., whilst the Phyto- 
mydee F. D. consist of still further portions of Latreille’s Scatomy- 
zides, and his 6th section Leptopodites. The Aciphoree FR. D. form 
part of Latreille’s 7th section, Carpomyze ; and the Napeelle FR. D. 
nearly correspond with Latreille’s 3d section, Hydromyzides. La- 
treille has proposed two additional sections in the Régne Animal: 
namely, the Gymnomyzides, composed of the genera Lauxania, Ho- 
malura, Gymnomyza, &c.; and Hypocera, composed of the single ano- 
malous genus Phora. 
M. Macquart, in his Hist. Nat. d. Dipteres, has sought to simplify 
the arrangement of these tribes, and at the same time to combine the 
views of his predecessors in the following distribution : — 
Section 1. Creophiles, having a biarticulate or triarticulate style to the antenna, 
large alulets, and with the first posterior cell of the wings closed or nearly closed, 
corresponding with Latreille’s Creophila, with the addition of Stomoxys, &c. 
with Robineau Desvoidy’s Calypterate, after the removal of (&strus and 
Myopa, and with Fallen’s Rhizomyzides and Muscides. 
Seetion 2. Anthomyzides, having an inarticulate style to the antenna, the first pos-. 
terior cell opened, the front narrow, and the alulets small or moderate-sized, 
