634 president's address. 



also with Professor Huxley, who, as I think, was the author of the notice in the 

 "Header," from which Mr. Busk quotes. By this time, George Macleay would 

 have received particulars of W. S. Madeay's decease from William Macleay. 

 The information supplied to Mr. Busk by George Macleay would be based mainly 

 on recollections of his intercourse witli his brother up to the year 1859, supple- 

 mented by anything William Macleay might have communicated by letter. Per- 

 haps Huxley could speak of the work W . S . Macleay was interested in during his 

 visits in 1847-50. Mr. Busk's hope of future results was based on tlie fact that 

 George Macleay was his brother's heir, and that it was necessary for him to revisit 

 Sydney as soon as possible, to deal with his Australian interests. The delicate 

 health of his wife up to the time of her death in 1809, postponed this visit for 

 about four years. 



Prom what has been said above, it wiU be seen that the four papers published 

 in England or Calcutta, after W. S. Macleay came to Australia, and the two 

 letters published in Sydney, were overlooked by Mr. Busk. These communica- 

 tions, however, were not entomological. As a matter of fact, the only published 

 records of his own, indicative of his interest in Australian insects after his arrival 

 in Australia, beyond what has been stated above in speaking of his correspondence 

 with the Rev. F. W\ Hope, are some observations given by Mr. Hope in a Post- 

 script to his paper, "Observations on the Stenochoridae of New Holland, with 

 Descriptions of new Genera and Species of that Family," read to the Zoological 

 Society on June 23rd, 1840, [Trans. Zool. Soc. Vol. iii., p. 187], but the publica- 

 tion of this was delayed for some time. And some observations on an exhibit, 

 communicated by the Hon. Secretary, on his behalf at a Meeting of the Entomo- 

 logical Society of New South Wales on October 3rd, 1864. Both these records 

 will be considered later, when I come to speak of the history of the latter Society. 



In the concluding sentence of his paper on the "Annulosa of South Africa" 

 (1838) W. S. Macleay said of the Paiissidae — "I hope, however, as I am about 

 to visit Australia, soon to be able to make myself master of the oeconomy of these 

 interesting insects, and also to publish a correct representation of the parts of the 

 mouth." 



In his letter "On the SkuU now exhibited at the Colonial Museum of Sydney 

 as that of the Bunyip," he said, speaking of the teratologieal skull of a foal found 

 floating in the Hawkesbury then in his possession — "This skull was prepared by 

 the lamented late Dr. Stewart [Stuart], and he has made drawings and notes of it. 

 ■which I intend before long to publish, with his other observations on various 

 branches of natural history." 



Mr. Hope, in the paper on Stenochoridae, just mentioned, says of Meropachi/s 

 MacLeaii, n . sp . , — "This beautifully sericeous insect is named in honour of William 

 Sharpe Macleay, Esq., from whom we may shortly expect some valuable communi- 

 cations relating to the entomology of Australia." 



Nevertheless, neither W. S. Madeay's intentions, nor Hope's expectation, 

 came to fruition. 



Swainson's classifieatory and other aberrations may perhaps have exercised 

 some inhibitory influence on any inclination, W. S. Macleay otherwise may have 

 had, to continue his literary efforts; and to this, the state of his health may also 

 have contributed. But if he did put pen to paper on the subject of Australian 

 insects or Dr. Stuart's notes, and did not subsequently destroy the results, George 

 Macleay, perhaps after consultation with William, became the arbiter of tlieir dis- 

 posal, and dealt with whatever there may have been, as he thought lit. Mr. 



