186 Retrosjpective Criticism* 



Jurine of Geneva, made additional experiments and dissections, all con- 

 firmatory of the same views. Farther, one of the most accurate and dis- 

 tinguished living experimental physiologists, G. R. Treviranus, has repeated 

 the experiments and dissections of Hunter and Huber, with whom he agrees 

 in opinion as to the secretion of wax by the bees ; while he differs from 

 Mademoiselle Jurine as to some minutiae of structure in the secreting 

 organs.* 



I confess I have not repeated these experiments myself; it is impossible 

 for the most enthusiastic naturalist to verify personally every fact : I have 

 at least in this case trusted to three of the highest authorities in preference 

 (after weighing the matter) to those of ignorant though " experienced 

 apiarians." No one who has seen any of my papers will be apt to accuse 

 me of readily bending to authority however high ; though I perceive your 

 correspondent, Mr. John Murray, says that I " echo" Mr. BlackwalFs 

 theory * about spiders. In that case I most carefully repeated and re- 

 repeated all their experiments, and succeeded in verifying Blackwall's, but 

 uniformly failed in verifying Murray's.^ I think that, for the interests of 

 science, both of these gentlemen might employ a few spare minutes to 

 advantage in experimenting upon the best modes of writing with courtesy, 

 and of treating an opponent with liberality. In the spider controversy, 

 a most uncourteous, illiberal, and unscientific spirit has been shown. — 

 J. Rennie. Lecy Kent^ Jan. 26. 1831. 



The Term'' Trunk" in Entomology, — Sir, That I was " bold in attack- 

 ing the authority of so eminent an entomologist as Mr. Kirby " I admit ; 

 but, whether or not any one besides myself has doubts upon the question, 

 it is neither for your correspondent J. O. W. nor me to decide. What I 

 meant by the " unscientific term " trunk, is the proboscis by means of 

 which the Culices suck the blood of other animals. This proboscis is 

 certainly not, nor could it be, represented in Mr. Kirby's figure, owing 

 to the position in which the insect is drawn. There is, however, another 

 distinction, which must be evident to any one who will compare the insect 

 (fig. 91. «, Vol. I. p. 227.) with that figured in pi. 91. b. Viz., the form of 

 the body, the position of the wings, and the length and position of the 

 legs, which, in the Tipula genus appear always of a disproportionate 

 length compared with the body. — A. L. A. Alnwick, Jan. 4. 1831. 



Ci/perusfuscus, a British Plant. — Sir, Under the head of " Supplement 

 to English Botany," in your last Number, the writer, enumerating some of 

 the principal contents of the work, mentions, among others, Cyperu* fuscus, 

 " which," says he, " we have endeavoured to persuade ourselves may he 

 tvild," hereby, as it should seem, casting some doubt on the fact of its 

 being truly a native. Having been myself the person who forwarded the 

 specimens to Mr. Sowerby, as well as to Dr. Hooker some years pre- 

 viously, gathered in the low marshy ground near Little Chelsea, as men- 

 tioned in the Supplement and in Flora Londinensis, I beg to assure the 

 writer of the article in question that the Cyperu.9 appeared to be un- 

 doubtedly a native in that situation. I was directed and accompanied to 

 the spot, for the express purpose of gathering specimens of the plant, by 

 that able botanist, my friend A. H. Haworth, Esq., who was the firafc 

 discoverer of it in Britain. In this situation the Cyperu^ occurred copi- 

 ously, growing in small depressed tufts, which are well portrayed in Mr. 

 Sowerby's figure, far better, indeed, than in that of the Fldra Londinensis, 

 where the plant is represented as assuming an erect form. From Dr. 



* Zeitschrift fiir Physiologie, vol. iii. p. 62., for 1828. 

 f Mag. of Nat. Hist.,' vol. iv. p. 84. 

 J Insect Architecture, p. 344^ — 354. 



