Article beginning on page 313.
Psyche 6:313-315, 1891.

Full text (searchable PDF)
Durable link: http://psyche.entclub.org/6/6-313.html

The following unprocessed text is extracted from the PDF file, and is likely to be both incomplete and full of errors. Please consult the PDF file for the complete article.

PSYCHE.
INTRODUCTION TO BRAUER AND VON BERGENSTAMM'S VORARBEITEN ZU EINER MONOGRAPHIE DER
MUSCARIA SCHIZ0METOPA.-I.
BY C. H. TYLER TOWNSEND.
[The following translation of the in-
troductory remarks and genesaliz a t' ions to be found in part i of Braner and v.
Bergenstamn~~s work on Tachinidae,
etc., was sent me some time ago by
Professor J. M. Aldrich, of Brookings,
South Dakota. The translation was
made in the rough by him, and at his
suggestion I have revised it for publica- tion. The original suggestion to pub-
lish it was my own. Its appearance
in English will, I believe, be of advan- tage to American students, since a
growing attention is now being directed
to this family of Diptera in this country. The introduction contains many gener-
alizations and valuable ideas not known
outside of special workers in this fam-
ily, and gives an insight into the meth- ods of work employed by its authors,
which is not devoid of interest even to
those who may not accept in full the
plan of their work as carried out.
I do not wish to be understood as
sanctioning the views here exposed.
The portion treating of head-characters, other characters, relationships, etc.,
which comprises nearly the whole and
is merely descriptive, is excellent. I
agree with the authors on what is said
regarding the necessity of smaller
groups (at least more restricted genera) in the Muscidae, but I do not sanction
the extreme to which they have pur-
sued this plan. Finally, I can not agree with what is said favoring- the aban-
-
donment of generic names long in use.]
It is a fundamental principle in the
development of the whole Dipterous
stock that, from the lowest ( OrtJior-
rhapha. nematocera) to the most dif-
ferentiated or highest ( Cyclorrapha
schi.ometo$a), the actual value of the
genus, and of the systematic series gen- erally, becomes less and less. This
proposition seems applicable to all
groups of animals,-in all cases the
most recent forms are more closely re-
lated and more difficult to characterize than older ones. For example, this is
the case in the land-snails, as compared with sea-snails and mussels. The
cause lies in the numerous intermediate
forms occurring in a group of animals
which has just reached its period of
greatest prolificness.
But in particular cases this state-
ment may not be true, for there are in-
deed single branches of the older groups which have only at the present time
reached the stage of multiform develop-
ment. With this limitation, it is true




================================================================================

PSYCHE.
that the related groups of the Orthor-
rapha, and even the Cyclorrapha of
older origin, as the Syrphidae, are
much more sharply separated from each
other, and easier to establish by definite characters, than those of the Muscaria.
The ^Iiiscaria schizometopa^ which,
exclusive of the Anthomyidae, are here
treated, have been repeatedly divided
into differently related groups, but no
author has been able to establish his
groups upon characters which apply to
all cases. In the description of genera
almost every one has overstepped,
either inadvertently or purposely, the
limits he had previously set. The
characters applied change in their con-
bination with such complexity that it is almost impossible to discover one which
continues constant through several or
many genera, much less to discover a
harmony of characters indicating a nat-
ural system. After having labored
long in vain to define the previously
formed groups by constant characters,
we have come to the conclusion
that our object can only be attained in
another way ,-by ignoring the previ-
ously established groups of Tachinaria,
Dexiaria, kc., and clesigniiting a much
larger number of smaller groups, or
related series. Within such a small
group it is possible to determine har-
inonio~~sly combined characters for a
series of several genera. How these
groups are to be arranged with refer-
ence to each other can, however, be
settled only very imperfectly. We refer
to this particularly, as it might other- wise be supposed that we wish in the
sequence observed to indicate a serial
relation. To us the relations seem
rather to extend in many directions from every group, and to allow no simple
linear arrangement.
The question may arise, why we do
not rather combine all the forms of a
group into one genus with many sub-
genera. On this question we take the
ground occupied by almost all syste-
matic writers at the present day. In the first place, it is more intelligible to fix our stations by names than by numbers ;
second, our genera, with few excep-
tions, show only plastic characters ;
third, we possess several species for
almost every genus, which are distin-
guished from each other by many sub-
ordinate differences ; and fourth, we
would so treat the Muscaria, and so
comprehend the value of genera, as to
agree with what Rondani, the best re-
viser of the group, has already done.
Whoever begins to divide the genera
Tachina, Dexia, &c., is compelled to
continue the work until only those
characters which are altogether subor-
dinate remain for the species,-the as-
rangement of the macrochaetae, the
form of the sexual organs of the male
and female (not the typical develop-
ment for a group, but lesser characters
than these ; for instance in Phaniidae), the color, hair, width of face, &c.
If we adhere to the proposition that
a genus comprises only a series of
species, disunited from other series by a lack of connecting forms, then we must
mark off a new genus whenever, among
the slight subordinate differences of the various parts of the body, new charac-
ters are found, lacking in the previous




================================================================================

September 1892.1 PLS~'-CHZ?. 315
series and therefore giving rise to a new combination. Such characters are then
important, if they constantly recur in a series in combination with others.
Since a genus cannot be defined except
as a natural series of related species,
we refrain from entering into the distinc- tion of subgenera, groups of species; etc. We find better stopping-places for the
limitation of families, and on this point we maintain the view which was
set forth in the Journal of the Imperial academy of sciences (v. 91, i. 1885,
p. 327), according to which " the
known larval forms furnish important
characters for separation into the
groups known among insects as fami-
lies and genera", seldom for a higher
category. The expression genus was
there discarded, for two reasons : first, because many of our fiimilies are the
genera of older authors, and second,
because in genera in which the like or
similar life habits of the larvae come in- to consideration among the characteris-
tics, the larvae have acquired constant
characters.
If in more recent times, strange to
say, it is still disputed whether the
classification should be based upon the
mature insect or upon the entire devel-
opment, we can quickly decide, since
the fonne?- view is contrary to all the
fundamental principles of the natural
system. Whither views formed on
such a basis lead, may be best seen in
the new division of the Coleoptera into
genuine and rhynchophorous. This
comes from a misunderstanding- of the
value of characters derived from the
earlier stages. The latter must, for
the higher categories (family, order,
class, etc.), be considered of high
importance ; for genera and species
the characters of the imago are always
more important, because the larvae
(with few exceptions) show far fewer
distinguishing features, and by means
of them one could only distinguish se-
ries [not species]. Perfectly in harmony with this is the communication presented in the Records of the Imperial academy
(math. nat. class, v. 47, p. 36)011 the so- called family of Muscaria schizome-
topa, where the non-existence of such a
family was proved. The idea of many
smaller groups was also suggested there. That the known larval forms cannot in
this case prove the contrary, had been
shown even earlier (Verh. k. k. 2001.--
bot. ges., 1878, 161. See also Loew,
Stettin. ent. zeit., I 845. p. 3 I 2).
In conclusion we note particularly
that it shall be our special task to es- tablish the most natural genera possi-
ble, and in every case to attempt to re- duce former genera to this basis.
Whoever thinks the genera too many is
at liberty to consider them merely se-
ries of species, for convenience given a definite name. Some of our groups
are then to be considered as genera,
while others may be subdivided.
Since our characterization ofthe groups
is based on essentially different points of structure from those of former authors,
we are in a position to arrange in our
system only those forms which we could
examine and of which we possess the
type specimens. Species, the descrip-
tions of which do not mention the points that are important to us, must be laid




================================================================================

316 Psx'2fE. [September 1892,
aside for the present, because their false views on the forms which have not been
arrangement would only cause more examined by us. Meanwhile we recom- confusion than already exists. Farther mend that the possessors of types ex- on in our work we will express our amine them in the light of our system. JOHN VVITT RANDALL.
Dr. J. W. Randall who died at Rox-
bury, Mass., 25 January 1892 is known
to the present generation of entomolo-
gists as the author of two papers de-
scriptive of Coleoptera from Maine and
Massachusetts published more than fifty
years ago in the second volume of the
Boston journal of natural history.
John Witt Randall was born in Boston,
13 November 1813. His father Dr.
John Randall was an eminent physician
of Boston and his mother Elizabeth
Wells was the granddaughter of Samuel
Adams the revolutionary patriot. He
graduated from Harvard College in
1834. One of his classmates says: "he
displayed a marked originality of char-
acter.
Though among us, he was not
wholly of us, but seemed to have
thoughts, pursuits, and aspirations to
which we were strangers. His tastes
developed in a scientific direction, en- tomology being the branch to which he
devoted himself. The college at that
time did little to encourage such pur-
suits, but he pursued the even tenor
of his way till he had made a very fine
collection of insects." Dr. Randall
studied medicine after his graduation.
He was offered and accepted an appoint-
ment in zoology connected with the
Wilkes exploring expedition to the
South Seas; owing however to the de-
lays which occurred before the expedi-
tion sailed he resigned.
Dr. Randall's scientific papers are as
follows :
I. Descriptions of new species of
coleopterous insects inhabiting the state of Maine. Bost. journ. nat. hist., Feb.
1838, v. 2, no. I, pp. 1-33.
2. Descriptions of new species of
coleopterous insects inhabiting the state of Massachusetts. Bost. journ. nat.
hist., Feb. 1838, v. 2, no. I, pp. 34-52. (See Proc. Bost. soc. nat. hist., Jan.
1875, v. 17, pp. 373-385.
On the spe-
cies of Coleoptera described by Mr. J.
W. Randall, by P. S. Sprague with
notes by E. P. Austin.)
3. Catalogue of the Crustacea brought
by Thomas Nuttall and J. K. Townsend
from the west coast of North America
and the Sandwich Islands with descrip-
tions of such species as are apparently
new, among which are included several
species of different localities previously existing in the collection of the Acad-
emy. Journ. acad. nat, sci. Phil.,
1839, v. 8, pt. I, pp. 106-147, pi. 3-7. A volume on the animals and plants of
Maine was prepared but not published.
His volume of poems entitled Conso-
lations of Solitude, Boston, 1856, 2d
edition 1857, was commended by J. H,
Abbott in the North American review.




================================================================================