1892.] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 7^ 



R KVIEW . 



Die Zweiflugler des Kaiserlichen Museums zu Wien, v. Vorar- 

 beiten zu einer monographie der muscaria schizometopa (exclu- 

 SIVE Anthomyid^). Part II. By Prof. Dr. Friedrich Brauer and J. 

 Edlen v. Bergenstamm. Wien, 1891.— I am indebted to the authors for 

 a copy of the above work, which has recently been published. It consists 

 of 140 quarto pages (no plates), and is in continuation of their work begun 

 in Part I, under same title, and published in 1889.* About 100 new genera 

 are erected, and not quite as many new species, these being entirely ad- 

 ditional, be it understood, to the new genera and species published in 

 Part I. One can only deplore the lack of order, uniformity and comprehen- 

 siveness displayed in the body of the work, which consists entirely of 

 corrections and additions to be interpolated at designated intervals 

 throughout Part I. The genera of other authors have been mercilessly 

 used. Mr. v. d. Wulp's recent genera (published in the Biol. C.-A.) are 

 torn to pieces bodily, and patched up from other quarters. The authors 

 are to be complimented on presenting at the end of their work a syste- 

 matic list of all the groups, genera and species which they have proposed 

 in Parts I and II. This is put in very comprehensive form, and is followed 

 by a still more convenient index of specific names leading to the genera 

 in which the authors have placed the species, and designating the genera 

 to which the latter were originally referred by their describers. The ruth- 

 less deposition of genera, in which the authors indulge, should not be 

 countenanced. Echinomyia is decapitated, and Tachina installed in its 

 place. Eiitachina is created to fill the vacancy thus left by Tachina. 

 Numerous new genera are erected on trivial or insufficiently designated 

 grounds, at the expense of former well-to-do ones; or genera long ago 

 abandoned are raised from a condition of comparative obscurity, and 

 made to supplant those which have long been in use. Why the generic 

 term Latreillia should be preferred to Belvosia, when both were described 

 on adjoining pages by the same author in 1830, is beyond explanation, and 

 especially when we consider the time-honored usage of Belvosia, and the 

 fact that Latreillia was proposed by Roux, in 1827, for a genus of Crus- 

 tacea. The name Metopodia is applied to a new genus; this is apt to 

 become confused with Metopodus Am. Serv. (Hem.) or with Metapodius 

 Westw. (Hem.) If the genus be a valid one, I would propose the use of 

 the term Neometapodia for it. As nearly as I can form an opinion, 

 without actually cataloging and classifying all the names, the new genera 

 and species proposed (usually insufficiently characterized) are divided 

 geographically as follows: N. Am. gen. 25, spp. 17; So. Am. gen. 18, spp. 

 18; Extra Am. gen. 59, spp. 61. If the authors would present full descrip- 

 tions, properly and systematically arranged, of their new genera and spe- 

 cies, their work would be much more comprehensive and productive of 

 good. As it is, their labors can scarcely be appreciated by one who has not 

 access to the collections in the Museum in Vienna. — C. H. T. Townsend. 

 * For a notice thereof by Dr. Williston, see Ent. News, vol. i, p. 77. — Ed. 



