46 Mr. W. S. MacLeay on Oistros or Asiliis. 



know, however, of the latter genus answers in no one res)>ect 

 to the description above given of the ancient CEstriis, which 

 certainly was an insect allied to the modern Tabanus ; whereas 

 Nemestrina has no immediate connexion with it either in eco- 

 nomy or structure. Besides, no Nemestrina has ever yet been 

 found in Europe. The argument for Pangonia is rather 

 stronger, as this is not only an European genus, but one nearly 

 allied to Tabamis. Aristotle however says, that his (Estnis 

 and Myops have both a strong tongue (i<r;)/of «v yXSoTTav e-xovcri)', 

 a description in perfect accord with the mouth of a modern 

 Tabanus, but quite at variance with the long, weak and flex- 

 ible proboscis of Pangonia^ which can scarcely be supposed 

 capable of piercing the hide of an ox. Olivier and Latreille 

 indeed both state, that the long trunk of Pangonia, like that 

 of Bombylius, only serves for sucking flowers. But to insects 

 that suck flowers Aristotle expressly places his olcrr^os in op- 

 position. 



It is rather interesting to remark the manner in which the 

 early modern naturalists viewed this subject. Mouffet's opi- 

 nion is, as far as I can make it out, the same with mine given 

 above. At all events he considers the jw,ua)\J/ of the Greeks to 

 be our Hcematopofa pluvialis. Ray, on the other hand, con- 

 sideTS this insect to be the o'tarpog, as we may judge fi-oni the 

 following description, " Musca bipennis CEstrum dicta, alis 

 membranaceis punctis crebris nigrioribus velut adspersis ; " 

 which is clearly the Hccmatopota. 



Valisnieri appears to have been the first naturalist of any 

 repute who took the modern (Estrus to be that of Virgil, while 

 Martyn and other commentators seem to have adopted his 

 opinion. The first insect, which Linnaeus considered to be 

 the (Estrus of the ancients, appears to have been a species of 

 the modern genus Asilus, probably the Asiliis crabroniformis, 

 as we learn from his Lachesis Lapponica. This was a gross 

 error ; and he soon rectified it, as he thought, by adopting the 

 opinion of Valisnieri. It is not indeed unlikely that some of 

 the ancients* should, like Valisnieri, have seen the perfect in- 

 sects of the modern (Estrus flying about cattle, and that they 

 should have witnessed the extraordinary agitation which they 



* Aristotle was not certainly one of these ancients; for he could never 

 have seen a female of the modem (Estnis, as appears from his stating that 

 no dipterous insect has its sting placed behind. It seems however to have 

 escaped the notice of naturalists, that this great philosopher was acquainted 

 with, and has described the larva of one of the modern iaxnWy oi CEstridce ; 

 and, as is rather singular, precisely that larva which Reaumur describes as 

 infesting the fauces of the stag, but of which the perfect insect remains still 

 unascertained. — See Arist. Hist. Anm. lib. ii. f. 18; and lieaum. torn. v. 67 

 -77. 



produce : 



