ENTOMOLOGY IN NEW ZEALAND, 187 



inferior work as he would wish to represent my book to be. He 

 states that he has only been in New Zealand three years, and 

 that the localities at which he has been stationed have not been 

 favourable to the pursuit of entomology ; also " that there is 

 little or no literary work at least get-at-able." Subsequently he 

 ascertained, I may remark, through the aid of local naturalists, 

 myself included, that some entomological work had been done 

 in New Zealand, and forthwith he proceeds on this basis to 

 demonstrate the defective nature of the work done by his 

 predecessors. 



Mr. Quail alleges that I am unacquainted with the work of 

 certain lepidopterists for whose methods he apparently entertains 

 a certain amount of respect, but in his criticism of the system of 

 classification followed in my book he is simply condemning the 

 sj^stem of Meyrick, with which he does not appear to be fully 

 acquainted himself. This system, it may be pointed out, is 

 being largely followed by the British Museum authorities in 

 their great work on the Heterocera of the world, so that appa- 

 rently I am not singular in placing a certain amount of depend- 

 ence on the work of the "one man" he alludes to. I expressly 

 explained my reasons for following Meyrick in my introduction 

 thus : — " Although adopting Mr. Meyrick's system in the present 

 work, I do not agree unreservedly with all his conclusions ; but 

 I have not attempted to alter his system in accordance with my 

 own views, as I conceive that the conclusions of a naturalist who 

 has only had the opportunity of studying a restricted fauna would 

 necessarily be liable to considerable error." This passage, I 

 think, disclaims any individual responsibility on my part. 



I shall not occupy your valuable space with detailed remarks 

 on all the points raised by Mr. Quail in regard to my work, but 

 trust I may be permitted to refer to one or two as examples of 

 the class of criticism to which I have been subjected in the 

 article under review. 



Mr. Quail states that he captured one specimen of S. con- 

 volvuli in Auckland in February, 1897. From an examination 

 of this single specimen he concludes that my figure of the insect 

 is incorrect. Again, Mr. Quail remarks that my figures of the 

 Caradrinina (Noctuidae, &c.) are poor. He can have had but 

 very little experience in the figuring of species belonging to this 

 very obscurely marked group not to know that, whilst it is 

 possible to obtain faithful and striking representations of the 

 sharply and brightly marked species belonging to other groups, 

 many species of the Caradrinina baffle all attemi>ts at description 

 or delineation. This point is specially referred to on page 15 of 

 my book, where I describe the difficulties encountered in dis- 

 criminating between the species of the genus Mdanchra, as well 

 as the doubtful nature of many of the species included in that 

 genus. 



2b 



