228 



ON SOME REGENT RHYNGHOTAL GRITIGISM 



bj IW. li. Iliiitant. 



D"" Bergroth (ante p. 184) has published under the litle « on 

 some recently described Hemiptera, chielly from India » what is 

 really a pièce of personal invective, illustrated witli the usual pla- 

 giarism from other writers. I am compelled to reply, not only 

 because tiiis onslanght has appeared in the Annales of an eminent 

 entomological society, but also because silence on my part niight be 

 misunderstood. 



Bergroth remarks that I « seem to greatly resent every criticism 

 of my Works, forgetting that science can make no progress without 

 criticism ». I cannot admit the accuracy of this statement, for 

 though I hâve always thankfuUy availed myself of correction, even 

 in some cases from Bergroth himself, I should he indeed neglect- 

 ing the axioms of science if I were to agrée with ail the pseudo- 

 criticism which marks the « disastrous activity » of this versatile 

 controversialist Space will only allow me lo give a few instances. 



In the Rev. d'Ent. (XI, p. 264), Bergroth stated that may genus 

 Parabrachytes « est identique au genre Odontorrhopala StAl », I 

 replied to this (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (6) XI, p. 53) giving parallel 

 descriptions of the two gênera. Bergroth then informed me that 

 be was glad I had cleared the matter up, as he had not (up to that 

 time) seen a specinie7i of Stâl's genus!! In the same publication 

 (p. 210) he stated that the Rhaphigaster rinaspus Dall., « est sans 

 doute une Menida.y> Whereas Dallas had placed it rightly, of course 

 substituting the older name Nezara for Rhaphigaster. This was 

 probably another hasly conclusion, for had Bergroth seen or 

 known the species be would not hâve committed so glaring an 

 indiscrétion. In thèse Annales (VIII, p. 297) he stated that some 

 African species of Tingididce which I had provisionally placed in 

 the genus Phatnoma really belonged to the Orientai genus Gony- 

 centruyUy with which however they had nothing to do and for 

 which figures existed to preclude such a statement. Are thèse few 

 instances, from many others, to be taken as an illustration of his 

 otherwise sound dictum that « science can make no progress 

 wishout criticism »? 



Bergroth is however guite correct in pointing out that under 

 the name of Consivius colUnus I bave redescribed Corizus hyos- 

 cyami L. Horvath in also pointing out the same error more accu- 

 rately refers to that species as Tlierapha Ityoscyanii. Such an 

 aberration on my part is naturally to me both a source of regret 

 and chagrin, but I am slightly comforted by feeling that in this 



