BRITISH Vé7SUS EUROPEAN LEPIDOPTERA. 109 
devoted to the subject of Entomology, unless, indeed, it appeared 
in ‘Land and Water’ only after being rejected by these 
magazines. That it may have been so rejected seems likely 
enough, for a more illogical paper I have rarely read, displaying 
both an ignorance of British Lepidoptera and of English litera- 
ture on the subject which is simply depressing. M. Wailly may 
“already see a simile,” as he anticipated; but it is at no cracking 
“of one of his jokes,” but rather in pity. M. Wailly informs us 
that, besides exotic Lepidoptera, “I also rear Kuropean species 
whenever I receive ova or pupe of such that I do not know, and 
I know but few of them.” This is a reasonable thirst for know- 
ledge. But he tells us that “on October 27th, 1879, he received 
500 ova of Ennomos autumnaria (= alniaria)” ; this strikes one 
as an enormous number for one person to receive, if it is only a 
reasonable thirst for knowledge he desires to slake—a dozen eggs 
would suffice. ‘‘The ova hatched from May 10th, 1880, but I 
kept no notes on the rearing of the larve, which were of little 
interest to me.” Then there was not much thirst after all; yet 
why again in 1881 did M. Wailly rear them “for the second 
time” and obtain “‘a large quantity of fertile ova”? Surely our 
philosophic entomologist takes a deal of trouble about a species 
of “little interest” to him. Having introduced a species which 
was of extreme rarity here, M. Wailly not only attempts to 
defend this procedure, but attacks those entomologists who limit 
their studies to British Lepidoptera. As regards defence, I will 
remark, ‘‘qui s’excuse s’accuse”; the attack, however, requires 
some special notice. 
M. Wailly delivers himself of this extraordinary remark :— 
“He who imports and rears species which he cannot find or 
obtain in his own country is a creator, as it were; he who 
ransacks every nook and corner to hunt down rare species is a 
destroyer”; and he asks, ‘‘ which of the two renders the greatest 
service to entomological science?” He continues, “It is un- 
necessary to state why entomologists who sell pure British 
species object to the introduction of continental species for an 
obvious reason.” The reason may be obvious enough, but surely 
not more obvious than M. Wailly’s reason for upholding the 
importation of continental species—and, mind, especially the 
importation of those species the British examples of which 
command a high price. I will ask M. Wailly, did he not import 
