XVII, 



"MUSCA DIABOLICAL' 



T EST these lines should meet the eye of any dipterist, let 

 me hasten to say that I do not pretend to have dis- 

 covered any new species, for the creature I am about to 

 describe is only too well-known to Anglo-Indians. Should 

 entomologists cavil at the name and declare that the Indian 

 house-fly is nothing more or less than Musca dcmestica 

 the common or garden house-fly, I reply that since there is 

 no satisfactory definition of a species there is nothing to 

 prevent anyone from making a new one out of an old 

 animal, provided there are good reasons for so doing. Do 

 not some dipterists assert that there are two distinct 

 species of house-fly ? Why, then, not a third ? Consider 

 the great difference in character between English and 

 Indian house-flies ; although they are both depraved crea- 

 tures, the Indian fly Musca diabolica is able to work as 

 much iniquity in an hour as an English fly can in a whole 

 day. If one of the latter insects settle upon your nose and 

 you drive it off, it at once betakes itself to some other play- 

 ground. Not so the Indian fly. It, having once made up 

 its little mind that your nose is a suitable projection where- 

 upon to alight, obstinately persists in settling there no 

 matter how many times you drive him off. 



The Italian Ugo Poscolo called the comparatively harm- 

 less and innocent house-fly of Europe one of the three 

 miseries of life. His classification would have been some- 

 what upset by a visit to India. 



The Indian fly is the one animal with which I have no 

 sympathy. As I have had occasion to state before, this 

 creature rouses all rny worst instincts. Cruelty ceases to be 



