3 1 8 Reply to Mr. Shuckard. 



Burmeister's description of the mandibles (Handbuch, Shuck- 

 ard's translation, p. 52.), namely, " two strong, corneous, 

 somewhat bent hooks, their inner margin being more or less 

 dentate," and had compared this description with the figure, 

 pi. 4. fig. 8. a, he would never have fallen into such an error. 

 It will also be advantageous for him to consult the definitions 

 of mandibles given by Fabricius (Philosophia Entomologica, 

 p. 44.), and Kirby and Spence (Introd., vol. iii. p. 43. pi. 6. 

 fig. 12. b). He will then, perhaps, think it necessary to 

 withdraw this charge of inaccuracy. 



4th. Inaccuracy of omission. How it was possible in so 

 very short a summary of the points in question to introduce 

 more than I have introduced, I cannot determine. I have 

 completely answered the chief charge of omission of the 

 observation as to lugubris being " 1' espece la mieux deter- 

 minee " of the genus Pemphredon in my former article. 



5th. I have not cited Fabricius's characters of Pemphredon. 

 Latreille's chief character of Pemphredon was "mandibules 

 unidentees " ; and Fabricius says "mandibula unidentata," 

 which looks somewhat like confirmation. 



6th. I admit this charge. Misled not only by Jurine's figure of 

 the mandible of Pemphredon lu- . 



gubris (of whichjig.26.ais a copy), 

 but by my own actual dissection ~^ , 

 (made years ago), I stated the man- Wjl 

 dibles to be bidentate. Mr. Curtis 

 having, however, figured them with 

 an additional tooth, I more carefully 26 



examined my dissections, and discovered that, although when 

 viewed from above they exhibit the appearance of being only 

 bidentate (as represented at b), yet, when seen laterally, they 

 are constructed as represented at c. Mr. Shuckard's own 

 description of these mandibles (Indig. Foss. Hym., p. 193.) 

 is erroneous ; for, I presume, he will not endeavour to 

 maintain his theory of dentition in opposition to the autho- 

 rities cited in objection 3d. 



In taking final leave of the subject, I must apologise to 

 your readers for having occupied so much of their time. Had 

 my opinions merely been questioned, I might have remained 

 silent. Sincerely do I hope that inaccuracies of a more 

 serious kind than those with which I have been charged, and, 

 as I trust, so satisfactorily answered, may never be adduced 

 against me. 



