44 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 51 



teratae. Brauer claimed that the idea was original with him, and 

 probably arrived at his conclusions on both the CEstridae and the 

 Conopidae quite independently (see Psyche, vol. 6, p. 259. The au- 

 thor was unaware at that time of the above facts). Brauer claimed 

 to have studied Robineau-Desvoidy.' s posthumous work exhaustively, 

 and probably neglected the Essai. In the former the (Estridae are 

 separated entirely from the Myodaria, which would explain the 

 above oversight on Brauer's part. 



Reference has already been made to the advisability of employing 

 the subsection name Schizometopa. Robineau-Desvoidy, when he 

 wrote his Essai, had practically the same idea of the limits of the 

 superfamily as those here arrived at quite independently. He ex- 

 cluded the Anthomyiidae from his Calypteratae, which division thus 

 coincides in the main with the present superfamily Muscoidea, as 

 here restricted. Latreille originally applied the name Creophilae to 

 these flies, and Macquart and Westwood used this name. The 

 division Calypteratae of Robineau-Desvoidy was later made to in- 

 clude the Anthomyiidae on account of the presence of tegulae in that 

 family. As has been already pointed out, the tegulae do not afford 

 characters of sufficiently high value to be applied to these divisions. 

 Therefore, for several very cogent reasons, which are self-evident, it 

 becomes not only advisable, but necessary, to drop both Creophilae 

 and Calypterata as subsection names. The superfamily name Mus- 

 coidea covers the field to which they were originally applied, and the 

 name Schizometopa designates the subsection. 



The failure heretofore, chiefly on the part of Schiner and his fol- 

 lowers, to properly define the grand divisions of the Myodaria, and 

 especially the families of Muscoidea, has been due to the attempted 

 application, in a case demanding primary, constant, and approxi- 

 mately well-defined characters, of two secondary and gradating char- 

 acters — namely, the presence or absence of tegulae and aristal pubes- 

 cence. These two characters are unserviceable, both because they 

 intergradate to such an extent as to preclude the drawing of any 

 natural lines of separation, and, further, because the parts exhibiting 

 them are so functional that they afford characters of only secondary 

 value or less. It was inevitable that a system founded on such 

 characters could not stand, for the natural boundaries do not exist 

 where it was endeavored to set them. 



In the present paper the Muscoidea and Anthomyioidea are sepa- 

 rated in such a manner, on atavic chaetotactic and venational char- 

 acters, as to throw a few forms heretofore classed with the old 

 Muscidae s. str. into the Anthomyioidea, which arrangement is be- 

 lieved to represent their relationships more truly. 



