4 Mr. JVIatthews' Jt'c/j/i/ fa (Jrifici^'iim on 



cannot now remember their names ; liut one sucli fact is of itself 

 sutfici(Mit to prove an amount of carelessness perhaps without 

 parallel, certainly without excuse. 



But, had as this was, his treatment of Col. Motschulsky was 

 far worse. In a paper published in the Bull. Mosc, 1845, Y. 

 IL, p. 504:, entitled " Ueber die Ptiliens Bussland," Col. Mot- 

 schulsky makes the following remark, " I said in the Stettin 

 Zeitung that I had 33 species of Ptilium, Gillmeister wrote for 

 them, received them, and returned them saying ' none new' " 

 By the above date it is clear that the transaction alluded to 

 must have taken place previously to the publication of Dr. 

 Gillmeister's Monograph, it therefore both justifies my assertion 

 that Dr. GiUmeister had seen Col. IVIotschulsky's types, and 

 renders the publication of synonymy such as that given under 

 the head of " T. deijvessa" (quoted by me at length in p. xii of 

 the Introduction to the Trichopterygia lllustrata), utterly con- 

 fusing and utterly inexcusable. But that example of synonymy 

 is only one of many of a similar character, by means of which 

 the confusion becomes disseminated throughout the work. 



If Dr. Gillmeister had not seen Col. jNIotschulsky's types anil 

 could not comprehend his descriptions, which it is often scarcely 

 ])Ossible to do, he should have omitted their names altogether 

 from the list, or have classed them separately as " Sjierie.>- 

 hiccrtd'" rather than have assigned them a<l libitum U) s]jecies 

 with whicdi tliey have no connection. 



In addition to all these instances of nomenclature wilfully 

 confused, I might reasonably have asked on what grounds did 

 Dr. Gillmeister ignore the Derm.. pilotieUnti, bnmneiis, and iiifld- 

 idus of Marsham, or the Sraphidiwii piowfattim of Gylleidial, 

 a name which had even then been recognized for about 40 years, 

 and in the place of this last substitute the far less expressive 

 term of Tricli. rdvfoma 1 But I thought that my case had been 

 sufficiently ])roved. 



Dr. Dohrn also complains that I assert that Dr. Gillmeister 

 in his Monograph did not bring forward a single fact which was 

 not })reviously known, except his observations on the Metamor- 

 phosis ; and to controvert my assertion cites my having adopted 

 four new species retaining the names which he had given them. 



