TAXONOMY OF MUSCOIDEAN FLIES — TOWNSEND 3 



apparently long- since lost sight of, that Robineau-Desvoidy origi- 

 nated the idea of including the CEstridae with his Calypterata (al- 

 though renounced in his posthumous work), and the Conopidse with 

 the Myodaria (Conopidae not included at all in posthumous work). 

 The founding of the now obsolete division Calypterata is also to be 

 accredited to him, though it is to be noted that he did not include the 

 Anthomyiidas therewith. The latter family was included in that 

 division by subsequent authors. In this connection, see Osten- 

 Sacken for statement that the term "Acalypterata" was interpolated 

 in Robineau-Desvoidy 's posthumous work by the editors (Berl. Ent. 

 Zeit, 1896, pp. 329, 335-6). 



Rondani marked a fourth epoch beginning about 1850. He re- 

 vised in large part the work of Robineau-Desvoidy,' still further in- 

 creased the number of genera, was altogether a very close student of 

 relationships, and possessed a remarkably clear insight into the affin- 

 ities of the Muscoidea, in which he was essentially a specialist. His 

 system was followed to some extent by his more immediate contem- 

 poraries, but Schiner, with a fine grasp of dipterous characters in 

 general and little conception of the needs of the Muscoidea, was espe- 

 cially active in bunching his genera. 



Schiner was a splendid general dipterist, but the method of treat- 

 ment adapted to other groups of Diptera fails when the attempt is 

 made to apply it to the Muscoidea. That is where Schiner, Mac- 

 quart, and all the other conservatists fell. And it is to be noted that 

 these conservatists were always general dipterists. They tried to 

 apply the same system throughout the Diptera, but the Muscoidea 

 need a distinct method of treatment, as will appear further on in this 

 paper under that heading. Even such conscientious students as 

 van der Wulp, Loew, Osten-Sacken, Williston, and others, who fol- 

 lowed Schiner largely, but were somewhat less conservative than he, 

 nevertheless fell far short of reaching a requisite degree of radical- 

 ism in their views as to a proper treatment of this superfamily. 



Others who entered the ranks during this fourth epoch, Walker, 

 Bigot, Bellardi, Jaennicke, Thomson, Meade, von Roeder, Kowarz, 

 Mik, followed Schiner more or less, adopting Rondani and Rob- 

 ineau-Desvoidy at times on certain points, and gradually increased 

 the stock of genera as seemed warranted along more or less con- 

 servative lines. 



Robineau-Desvoidy had divided the Muscoidea into many smaller 

 groups which he called stirpes, corresponding more or less in value 

 to our present subfamilies. These were not recognized by Rondani, 

 who grouped all into six stirpes. Neither Robineau-Desvoidy nor 

 Rondani were really adopted by Schiner, who recognized eight 



