XXX1V *.. W. A. Lewis on 
actual, it seems peculiar to excuse them on the ground of 
Staudinger’s better acquaintance with the literature; while the 
drift of the passage would appear to be that a verification of 
Staudinger’s references by Kirby would have effected the dis- 
appearance, not of discrepancies supposed or imagined to exist, 
but existing in fact. However, I do not take the phrase to 
imply a denial that the differences are actual and substantial, 
because, in truth, such a contention could not be raised by anyone 
acquainted with the two works. Staudinger (says Mr. Kirby) 
was better acquainted with the special literature, and had 
Kirby verified Staudinger’s references we should not be com- 
plaining as we are. It is invidious to look gift-horses in the 
mouth, and the explanation’which an author may choose to 
furnish to critics is a gift-horse to some extent. If, however, 
we contemplate using the animal for stud purposes, it may be 
that the character of our stable for years to come will depend 
on its strength and soundness, and a prudent man will pocket 
proverbial philosophy and send for the veterinary surgeon. The 
works, then, which Dr. Staudinger cites—which Mr. Kirby does 
not cite, and which may contain identifications of ‘ Diurnal 
Lepidoptera,”—do not exceed thirty in number, all told, and 
by far the greater part of these appear to be works of a com- 
pletely trivial character,—such, for instance, as may be used for 
the localities in Staudinger’s Catalogue, but of which he appears 
(though he gives them in his list of authors) to have ignored 
almost the whole number in the synonymy. In point of fact, 
I do not assert that these works may not here and there be 
responsible for differences, but the number which is thus 
accounted for is again insignificant so far as my researches 
have gone, : 
An odd thing about Mr, Kirby’s explanation is, that in another 
way it does not meet the complaint. The “ better acquaintance” 
with the literature, so far as making use of a far greater part 
of it is an indication, is shown on the part of Mr. Kirby. He 
has identified numbers of references which Dr. Staudinger has 
passed by, or (according to his own remark) has “ made use of 
materials which Staudinger has not employed.” Though in 
the majority of cases the same references have been made by 
both authors, and very often differently construed, yet there is 
no room for doubt who makes most use of the literature—that 
is Mr. Kirby himself, and not Dr. Staudinger. 
Mr. Kirby further says that had he possessed Werneburg’s 
“Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde” at the time he was 
writing his Catalogue, or had Staudinger’s new* Catalogue been 
published, he “ thinks he may say” many of the discrepancies 
* Tt is worth remarking that Mr. Kirby did start on the same general 
lines as Dr. Staudinger. In 1862 Mr. Kirby published a Manual of 
European Butterflies, which he prepared when enjoying “ unusual facilities 
for-studying the literature of Entomology,’ but he actually based that 
