12 THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



This brings me to the baffled despair of Mr. Pierce and his 

 correspondents, where he refers to my descriptions on pages 316-320 

 and 323. {Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1914). 



Habrodia^ jirunKs on p. 316. Had the figure (sharp in outline and 

 simple in detail) been referred to, it is quite incomprehensible to me 

 that any one could fail to follow the two — but then Mr. Pierce does not 

 like descriptions. 



Fseudcresia tripnnctata on page 320. " The general outline . . . 

 . to the end of the section." " The general outline " is the be- 

 ginning of my description — " to the end of the section " are Mr. Pierce's 

 words to define the paragraph he refers to— I cannot for a moment 

 imagine that Mr. Pierce did not refer to the figure 14 on Plate LIX., 

 and yet had he done so I really cannot see how anyone with any know- 

 ledge of these organs could fail to follow the descriptions and the 

 figure, and here I may say that the tine lateral curtain (a word 

 complained of), is palpable in the figure, and I submit is a most useful 

 and understandable word. 



Figure 25. Tiruinala petirerana is, I admit, much less easy to 

 follow on account of the dark masses, but nevertheless the description 

 can be followed with the figure and is correct, but it is necessary to be 

 careful to locate correctly the various parts. 



I venture to suggest that any confusion that exists does not rest in 

 the descriptions and figures, and that much of my critic's protest is 

 because I do not adopt his terminology, and because I do not agree 

 with his methods of work. 



In reference to the article by my friend Dr. McDonnough I should 

 say that Mr. Pierce himself adopts what he wishes from that paper, and 

 ignores what he wishes ; for instance, I believe that Zander's rinyivall 

 has been renamed by Mr. Pierce the Juxta or the A>ielliis or it may be 

 a combination of both, but I must admit that I find it very difficult 

 to be certain as to what is what in the many new names given by him, 

 for we have no " figure key " given, and there are no real descriptions 

 of the species, so that one has to try and fix the location of a name to 

 an organ with much uncertainty, because there is no perspective in a 

 flattened and distorted object as it appears on the plate. Again. Mr. 

 Pierce's use of " penis " and " fedoeagus " is quite contrary both to 

 Dr. McDunnough's and Zander's use and also contrary to general 

 custom ; both of the observers use the word " penis " for the middle 

 tube containing the ductus ejaculatorius, and I am satisfied that this 

 is the general custom. Zander called the outside cover, which is some- 

 times a tube and sometimes not a tube the " penis pouch" — this Mr. 

 Pierce ignores. The word "a3doe.agus " has long been in use I believe 

 among Coleopterists and has by them been referred to as the whole 

 organ and I should say that that signification has been very generally 

 accepted ; it appears to me that the word " penis " cannot properly be 

 used, as it is by Mr. Pierce. In conclusion I would say that I 

 regret that I have had to traverse considerably my critics statements. 

 I should not have called in question any of his work willingly, but his 

 criticisms on me have compelled it. Critiques sometimes are necessary, 

 certainly necessary where there are errors that will not be acknow- 

 ledged, but in cases such as this, where it is very largely a question of 

 opinion and where one observer is merely advocating the adoption of 



