86 Rev. A. Matthews's Notes on M. FauveVs 



are actually so in that example, it would by no means follow 

 that they must be equally broad in the one which I figured. 

 In such a case, T would suijofest that the Fex of the individual 

 might account for the difference. M. Fauvel next asserts that 

 " the head has not the series of four punctures on each side, 

 which Mr. Matthews has figured, Je ne sais pas pour quoi ! " 

 I can tell him why, Because they are there. Can M. Fauvel 

 think it at all likely that I should figure sculpture which did 

 not exist ? It would be at the least equally probable that he 

 himself had overlooked the fact. And if, indeed, these punc- 

 tures are not evident in the specimen Avhich M. Fauvel has 

 examined, it is somewhat rash to assert boldly that they do not 

 exist in one which he has never seen. His remark as to the 

 size of the exposed part of the scute] lum scarcely deserves 

 notice, since every one must know that in insects whose thorax 

 overlaps the shoulders of the elytra, the scutellum would 1)0 

 more or less exposed, according to tlie position of the thorax for 

 the time beino;. 



With regard to his observations on the pimctuation of the 

 al)domen, it is quite possible that this may have been rendered 

 too strong in the engraving, though it can scarcely be considered 

 of paramount importance. 



The last of M. Fauvel's hypercritical remarks is, if not 

 actually untrue, calculated to produce a false idea of the ap- 

 pearance of the insect. He says " the number of lateral sela? 

 given in the figure does not exist in the insect, Avhich exhibits 

 simply one black seta on the outer edge of each segment." 

 Knowing the importance of erect setaj, I was very careful in 

 this matter, and took the j:)recautioLi of counting hoiv many 

 existed on each separate segment before I had touched the 

 specimen, lest any shoidd become displaced by subsequent 

 manipulation. And the exact niunber is faithfully represented 

 in the figure. In tlie segments which exhibit more than one 

 erect seta, those farthest from the base do not indeed arise from 

 the outer edge, but from within tlie raised margin, nevertheless 

 all are equally i-isible beyond the sides of the abdomen. 



Far be it for me to follow the example of M. Fauvel, and to 

 assert tliat tlie characters which lie so dogmatically denies do 



