230 



With the Tingididae, Bergroth pursues a strarige logic. Horvath 

 had stated that my gênera Ayrerus and Urentius were the same, 

 though as I pointed out a pronotal hood was présent in one and 

 not in the other. Bergroth tlian argues that as the species descri- 

 bed by Horvath as Urentius chobauti has no hood, the charactei' 

 is only a spécifie one. He does not seem to recognize the plain 

 fact that Horvath is using my genus iii a manner I quite dispute. 



But whatever diiïerences tliere niay be in the merits and views 

 of our taxonomical work, in which Bergroth seems to claim tiie 

 authority and pursue the. method of a taxonomical Athmiasius, any 

 approach to misrepresentation should be avoided. He writes (an te 

 p. 187) that I did « not scruple to speak of Reuter's disastrous 

 results in retarding a knowledge » of the Capsidse. What I did say, 

 and what I now repeat, is that diUerence' in taxonomical views 

 « is a very healthy sign, and the study is frequently more advan- 

 ced by the différent proposition in classification, when they are 

 proposed on spécial reasons, than is the case when « a canon is 

 claimed for an individual arrangement as has been done for the 

 Gapsidse with disastrous results in retarding a knowledge of that 

 family ». For not foUowing this arrangement I hâve been assailed 

 unguihus et rostro, and this particular advocacy of a System, I con- 

 sider detrimental to the study of a particularly diffîcult family. In 

 this position I hâve made myself clearly understood in my vol. V. 

 (p. 228), and I hâve no more failed to admire, and profit by the 

 life-long work of D"" Reuter than I hâve ever felt compelled to 

 overestimate the pseudo-criticism and invective of D"" Bergroth. 



I hâve always, as far as possible, figured my species and pro- 

 posed gênera, which allows errors to be at once recognized if 

 wrong identifications bave been made. The describer — like Berg- 

 roth — who seldom figures may be an ardent critic of work thus 

 illustrated, while bis own remains in the protection of obscurity. 

 In the paper to which I am replying, Bergroth has successfuly 

 rid himself of the thin « veneer » of courtesy which usually apper- 

 tains to bis publications, but while I am preserved from bis praise 

 I can well afford to disregard bis abuse. 



