>54 



Retrospective Criticism. 



Mr. Babington's plan of giving a tabular view of the three 

 works. 



Mr. S.'s old Nomenclature. 

 Cicindela Auct. 

 sylvatica Lin. 

 hybrida Lin. 

 riparia Meg. 

 aprica mini, 

 sylvicola Meg. 

 campestris Lin. 

 germanica Lin. 



Mr. Curtis's Guide. 



10 CICINDELA. 1. 



1 sylvatica L. 



2 Sylvicola 1. 



3 hybrida L. 

 riparia Ste. 

 aprica Ste. 



4 maritima Dej. 



5 campestris L. 



6 germanica L. 



Mr. S.'s new Nomenclature. 



1. CICINDELA Auct. 



1 sylvatica Lin. 



2 maritima Dej. 

 hybrida Lin.? 



3 aprica Ste. 

 hybrida Dej. ? 



(4 riparia Meg.) 



5 Sylvicola Meg. 



6 campestris Lin. 



7 germanica Lin. 



The novel plan of alternate columns, above alluded to, can- 

 not, unfortunately, be shown in this comparison, although that 

 is a very important feature. I shall now merely ask, which of 

 the two columns bears the greatest resemblance in "plan and 

 style ? " and I think I may add, that every honourable man will 

 acknowledge I have good cause for complaint, and am fully jus- 

 tified in the observations I made in a recent number of the 

 British E?itomology [p. 461.]. I am, Sir, yours, &c. — John 

 Curtis. 5 7. Upper Charlotte Street ', Fitzroy Square, Sept. 1 6. 1 8 3 3 . 



Mr. Dale in Rebutment of Mr. Babington's Remarks, in 

 p. 437, 438., on Mr. Curtis. — At p. 437., Mr. Babington ac- 

 cuses Mr. Curtis of publishing "what appears to" him "a 

 most unjustifiable attack on Mr. Stephens," and asks " in what 

 do the copy and correction consist?" and then says " he can- 

 not find them." I will only request him to look again, and, 

 for fear of mistake, I will point out columns 131, 132, 133, 

 and 134., to the end of his first Part, which appears to me like 

 a copy; and for corrections let him compare the genera 18. 

 55. 203. 260. 420. 629., and many others, of which no ac- 

 knowledgment is given ; and as, in " the plan of the two 

 works there is certainly a resemblance," I think Mr. Curtis 

 is quite justified in the step he has taken. — J. C. Dale. SepL 

 1833. 



Mr. Water ton's Plan of Preserving Specimens of Natural Ob- 

 jectsfrom the Ravages of Insects, by imbuing them with the Poison- 

 ous Solution of Corrosive Sublimate in Alcohol. (V. 683. VI. 90.) 

 — Sir, It is now some time since I was recommended by Mr. 

 Watertonto make use of a solution of corrosive sublimate (hy- 

 drarg. oxymur.) in alcohol, to prevent the destructive effects of 

 moths in my collection of British birds. I found the plan per- 

 fectly efficient, and I now invariably wash every fresh specimen 

 before placing it among the others. The expense of the spirit 

 is the only objection, and, no doubt, the true cause of its not 



being more generally adopted. 



Having suffered 



much from 



