— n8— 



I e made in tunc, and meanwhile this species may be referred to by the manuscript 

 name V\ rosU nus primus. 



The fact that a species of this genus lias been bred from the pupa of 

 Eulophus would seem to indicate that Derostenus may consist of second- 

 ary parasites and tnat this species may have fed in the larva state on the 

 larvae or pupae of the Spilochalcis or the Sympiezus. 



Notes and News. 

 1 1 seems that Mr. VV. II. Edwards has not yet forgiven Dr. Hagen 

 for his article on Coiias. Having on several occasions attempted to dis- 

 pute Dr. Hagen's conclusions by bringing out prominently the differen- 

 ces between the species — thus showing how minute and evanescent they 

 really are — he now makes his attack in a different way and in ' Papilio" 

 IV, pp. 167 — 171, with great display of logic and fat type, undertakes 

 to prove that Dr. Hagen for the sake of annihilating several innocent 

 species of Coiias, did wilfully, and with malice prepense, manufacture, in- 

 vent, and as truths publish, certain facts which had no existence. In 

 other word sthat Dr. Hagen wilfully lied to prove the identity of two spec- 

 ies of Coiias. Of course such charges require no answer from Dr. Hagen. 

 No one believes them and they therefore do no harm. Still to show that 

 Mr. Edwards has either withheld evidence he had knowledge of, or did 

 not inquire far enough before making so grave a charge, the following is 

 published. 



"Dear Mr. Henshaw: 



You probably have "Papilio" 

 IV, No. 9 and 10. Will you please read the article 'On some Historical 

 Errors' on p. 167, and give me any information you may have, in refer- 

 ence to the matters there stated as facts. I am especially desirous of 

 learning about those insects caught in copula. Mr. Stretch says he did 

 not catch them: did you? What are the facts about that unfortunate 

 cyanide bottle? Please correct any other errors you may know of in the 

 article, and let me have your reply at as early a date as possible. 



Very truly, John B. Smith." 



Dear Sir: 



A number of the statements in the paper 



"On some historical errors'' (Papilio 1884! [1885] v. 4, p. 167 — 171) 

 by Mr. W. H. Edwards require correction. 



Dr. Hagen's statement, that six pairs of Coiias were taken in copu- 

 lation, is correct. Many envelopes, as Mr. Stretch writes, contained 

 more than a single specimen frequently of widely separated genera, but 

 in no case were specimens labelled as collected in copulation unless so 



