148 CHAPTER OF CRITICISM. 



Inferior honey answers as well as the best, and I find it more attractive than 

 sugar. As soon as the weather becomes mild, you may make the experiment, as 

 Orthozia pallida, 0. stabilis, and Semiophora gothica, appear about this time. 



I am, Sir, 



Your obedient servant, 

 Rev. F. 0. Morris. P. J. Selbv. 



CHAPTER OF CRITICISM. 



Malachius ruficollis, Panz., and M. bipunctatus, Bab. 



To the Editor of the Naturalist. 



Sir, — I have lately seen a paper by Mr. Babington again on these (or these 

 supposed ?) species ; and as I formerly had a little " sparring" with him respect- 

 ing them, perhaps it will not be thought improper if I offer a remark or two in 

 your Naturalist on what has been said. In the Entomological Magazine, Vol. 

 IV., p. 365, Mr. B. says, " Panzer's figure, part viii., No. 2, is M. ruficollis." In 

 the Magazine of Natural History, Vol. VII., p. 378 (not 278, as Mr. B. quotes), 

 he says Panzer's figure, part viii., No. 2, is Scolytus ceneus ! and that part ii., 

 No. 10, is M. ruficollis (!); although I corrected him at p. 524 of the same 

 volume that M. ruficollis, Panz., was part ii., No. 8 (not \§) ! ! He now tells 

 us, in ihe Entomological Magazine, p. 365, that " Panzer's figure (Index EnUm., 

 part viii., No. 2) is not his supposed species, but a rather poor representation of 

 the true ruficollis. It would appear also to be a male ! as it has not the pro- 

 minent abdomen of the females of this genus." I said at p. 178 of Loudon's 

 magazine (same vol.) that " it was a male" (if a $, the prominent part of the 

 abdomen is hidden by elytra), but Mr. Denson (the Editor) transposed my re- 

 ference to Panzer's " F. 2, pi. 8" — Fauna 2, plate 8 — to " pi. 8, fig. 2," thinking 

 F. meant figure instead of fauna, and that I had put the " cart before the horse," 

 which occasioned Mr. B.'s criticism on my supposed ignorance of mistaking a 

 Scolytus for a Malachius, of which he gave a figure, as well as of the other 

 Malachii above alluded to. 



Mr. B. now informs us that M. ruficollis and bipunctatus have been seen " in 

 such a situation as to prove that they are the sexes of one species." 



I suspected, at p. 178 of Loudon's magazine, that this was the case (although 

 I have not, up to this time, even seen M. bipunctatus, which I think, from Mr. 

 B.'s acknowledgment of some insects I sent him — every one, with a single ex- 

 ception, new to him — I had reason to expect, and I have only therefore to thank 



