" Tricli(i[>teriiiii(i I/Jtistrafa." 9 



was received from M. le Conite de Mniszecli, ticketed thus, 

 " Calif orula Makh'n." 



In the lust ])art of his Keview, Dr. Dohrn would seem to 

 imply that I made use of Latin in oixler to exhibit my superior 

 education ; the truth is that I made use of Latin, es])ecially in 

 the original descriptions transcribed from other authors, in order 

 to assist })ersons ((s /(j/ioranf "s iinifi'lf, those who cannot I'ead 

 the languages of Germany, Sweden, or Kussia. Had I used 

 entirely my native tongue the difficulty would have been 

 increased, as still fewer could have read English. By making 

 use of a medium of communication universally recognized, I 

 ho})ed to render my meaning intelligible to all. In reference to 

 the mistakes which I have made, I can only hope that anyone 

 who has read the Latin in the pages devoted to the anatomy of 

 the Trichoptenjtjia, would hardly suppose that such an outrageous 

 blunder as "in paludibus ("omtis C'antabridgiensibus," (triumph- 

 antly paraded by Dr. Dolirn), could have ])roceeded from ignor- 

 ance of the language. Its true histtjry is this, I had originally 

 Avritten " in paludibus Gonitis ( 'antaliridgiiMisis," and subse- 

 quently altered it thus, " in paludibus ( "autabridgiensibus," the 

 obliteration was overlooked by the printer, and idflKiHuh atr- 

 rected a .second time in the proof-sheet, the error was again with 

 extreme carelessness reproducetl in the final impression in all its 

 deformity, a fact unnoticed by me until too late to rei^tify the 

 mistake. " Lauria" is quoted from Motschulsky, and left 

 unaltered because I did not know for certain whether he 

 intended it for the ('rimea. The trans[)osition of the vowels in 

 " Madiera" arose from my owti carelessness in writing the word 

 originally, and in ovei-looking the error in the proof. Lliis name 

 is spelled correctly in my extracts from Mr. Wollaston. 



I think tliat I have now noticed all the critic-isms of I )r. 

 Dohrn. Tlie last few linens of his Ileview ex])ress, 1 would fain 

 believe, the re.al feelings of their writer more truly than his 

 previous remarks. I am not sur])rised that Dr. Dolirn should 

 have taken nn aruis in defence of his countryman, I respect and 

 honour his s])irit, though 1 doubt the exiiediency of eliciting 

 more positive proofs of his friend's misdoings. 1 have endea- 

 voured on my own liehalf to su])port my position, and if in so 

 doing I have anywhere exhibited unnecessary asperity, I fear the 



