THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 313 



Nothing occurred after this acknowledgment of the receipt of my 

 paper containing the table of the Homoeusa group until the arrival of the 

 following postal and little box : 



" Luxemburg, May ist, 1901. 



" Will you have the kindness to name the species of Myrmobiota for 

 me, which I send you by the same post in a little box ? It was sent to me 

 by one of my correspondents, who found it with Lasius niger." 



It seems quite evident that the crafty wording of this missive was 

 intended to ensnare if not to delude me, and as I had taken paiticular 

 care in the paper mentioned to show why Myrmobiota could not be the 

 same as Homoeusa, the tacit assumption here implied that I did not know 

 one genus from the other caused me to answer Mr. Wasmann rather 

 sharply, and I informed him in positive terms that the specimen sent was 

 in no manner a Myrmobiota, but a true Homoeusa. and alluded to my 

 recently-published paper, which I stated he could not have examined. 

 Thereupon, I received the following postal : 



" Luxemburg, June ist, 1901. 

 " Having not your 'last paper,' in which you explained the differences 

 between Homoeusa and Myrmobiota, I ask you to send it to me. Your 

 letter has come to my hands, and I learned the existence of that paper 

 only by your note in the letter. My specimens of 'Myrmobiota crassicomis' 

 were from Wickham too ; I am curious to know how you explain the 

 generic difference between Myrmobiota and Homoeusa now." 



My astonishment on receiving this postal can well be imagined, but I 

 nevertheless sent him another copy of the paper, and heard nothing more 

 until the article in question appeared in this journal. 



The fact that Mr. Wasmann still adheres positively to his original 

 theory that Myrmobiota is congeneric with Homoeusa, without having even 

 a specimen, seems to savour of that form of narrow-mindedness which 

 occasionally comes to light, even in men of acknowledged ability and 

 reputation — a hesitancy to correct or withdraw a statement once made, 

 although demonstrated to be untenable. I have always admired the work 

 of Mr. Wasmann, and regret the necessity of going into print in dispute 

 with him, but it will probably be admitted that there is at least some 

 justification for it in this instance. 



