and his Entomological Speculations. 117 



propounded by him geucrally with regard to the whole Animal King- 

 dom, in his series of four Articles on Cephalization, where Cephaliza- 

 tion is divided, subdivided and re-subdivided into Aa, Ab, &c, Ba, 

 Bb, &c, Ca, Cb, &c, like a Synoptical Table of Insects, and not to 

 his previous exposition of those views in the particular Class of Crus- 

 tacea. For on p. 1G3 of his Article he quotes the ideutical passage 

 from my Paper, as printed above, between inverted commas, totidem 

 verbis, except that he substitutes the word " propounded" for " ex- 

 pounded" and repeats tbe same substitution, likewise between inverted 

 commas, in the succeeding paragraph, where he goes one step further 

 and omits the qualifying words " iu Crustacea." It is hardly necessary 

 to add. that " propounding" a theory in general terms is a very dif- 

 ferent thing from "expounding" it in a particular case; just as " prose- 

 cuting" a criminal is a very different thing from " executing" him, " pro- 

 hibiting" a book is a very different thing from " exhibiting" it, and 

 ••proposing" a misstatement is a very different thing from "ex- 

 posing" it. 



2nd. On p. 240 of my Paper I said that "At all events IF Coleoptera 

 are inferior to Diptera, because their flying organs are placed further 

 back from the head, Diptera must be superior to Ilymenoptera, because 

 the Dipterous wing is placed one half-segment nearer to the head, than 

 the central point common to the front and liind icing in Ilymenoptera." 



Prof. Dana misquotes this statement, and makes me assert a thing to 

 be true, which the veriest tyro in Entomology knows to be untrue, iu the 

 following passage : — " Our objector" [i. e. Benj. D. Walsh] "says that 

 the position of the wings in the Dipters is half a segment nearer the 

 head than that of the anterior pair in the Hymenopters, and that 

 therefore the Dipters ought to stand first in the system." (p. 168.) 

 In the first place I never said that, unconditionally and absolutely, 

 " the Dipters ought to stand first in the system." The little word " if," 

 in my sentence as quoted above, cuts away that ground from under the 

 Professor's feet. And in the second place, what kind of a process is 

 this, to substitute the words "anterior pair [of wings] in the II y- 

 menopters" for my words " the central point common to the front and 

 hind wing in Hymeuoptera ?" Of course, having put a false and ab- 

 surd statement into my mouth, the Professor finds no difficulty in 

 refuting it. And in the same manner it would be easy to refute any 

 author that ever wrote, or ever will write, in this world. The pre- 

 scription is brief, easy and infallible. First misquote your antagonist's 

 laiiiruajre. so as to make him talk stark staring nonsense, and then with 



