Mr. Matthews" /A'///// fa (h-'du 



rtxiii-^ (III 



terms for many centuries out of use, for the purpose, as it would 

 certainly appear, of exhibiting one's superior knowledge of 

 ancient geography. 



With respect to the plates no fault has Ix-en found with those 

 which exhihit the genera, h\it a little more care on the part of 

 the engraver would have greatly iuiproved both the ajipearance 

 and utility i)i those devotetl to the species. This may very 

 easily be proved by comi)aring Plates Nos. 29 and 30 with any 

 of those which preceed them, in many of which the superficial 

 sculpture has been very inadequately expressed, and requires a 

 careful comparison with the descrijjtion of the species. 



But it is to the class of criticisms which assail my observations 

 upon previous authors that 1 wish to direct attention. None of 

 my remarks were made without careful consideration, and as 

 they are supported by clear and obvious proofs, I trust to be 

 able to establish the truth of all that I have written. Of 

 criticisms of this class that published in the " Stettin Ent. 

 Zeitung, XXXIV, p. 398, from the pen of Dr. Dohrn, is the most 

 inqjortant and the most detailed. I will therefore examine his 

 remarks seriatim. Eefemng t(» my review of (lillmeister's 

 " Trichopterygia," Dr. Dohrn tirst of all (piotes a notice of that 

 same work published in the " Stettin iMit. Zeitung, '\\ Vll, p. 59, 

 (1846), in which Dr. Schaum says "the descriptions are 

 splendid, short and to the point, they every wluu'c put proper 

 stress upon the specific diflerences. l>ut the nu»st perfect in this 

 classical work are the Plates, drawn by the author and engraved 

 by Sturm ; the most jierfect specdmens which the Entomological 

 Icononographie has to show." Dr. Dohrn tlien ([uotes my own 

 observations on Gillmeister (vid. 'i'richopterygia Tllustrata, 

 Introduction p. xii), and sul^secpiently remarks " that it is more 

 than curious that Schaum should call a work "splendid, per- 

 fect, and classical," of Avhi(;h Matthews' says that he only made 

 the confusion worse (-onfounded, added nothing liut what was 

 known, ignored the work of other Entomologists and misused 

 their liberality." But to say that Dr. Schaum designated (lill- 

 meister's work as "splendid, perfect, and classical," is to affix a 

 meaning to the learned Doctor's words which they clearly do not 

 possess ; the tenns splendid and perfect express merely Dr. 

 Schaum's opinion of the descriptions and plates. Whether Dr. 



