XI 
"If this be a fair account of what I said, my meaning must have been 
very ill-expressed. I refer to Proc. Ent. Soc. 1872, p. xxxiv., for what I did 
say, and will only add that I lent Mr. Lewis the MS. of my paper to prepare 
his reply. If the above be his understanding of what I have written, I can 
scarcely feel surprised that he has misrepresented Dr. Hagen. 
"Mr. Lewis would have it appear that we are 'at difference not upon 
facts, but upon the importance attached to them.' The statements which 
I challenged were these — that ' the Atropos of 1861 is the Clothilla of 
1865,' that ' the insect which [in 1861] had a bare back, 15-jointed 
antennae, and thickened thighs, has now [i. e. in 1865] leather-like 
wiuglets, 27-jointed antennae, and legs not thickened,' and that 'the same 
insect is described by Dr. Hagen twice over, on two adjoining pages, with 
opposite structural characters.' I say that these statements are erroneous ; 
and if that is not a difference upon facts, I am at a loss to conceive 
what is. 
" But how does Mr. Lewis meet my challenge ? He says, ' Mr. Dunning 
proves that the Linnean name pulsatoria was in 1865 transferred to an 
insect of the genus Clothilla, while in 1861 it has represented an insect of 
the genus Atropos. Granted at once; and therefore the Atropos of 1861 
is the Clothilla of J 865. The very same "pulsatoria, Linne" was in 1861 
described as an Atropos, and was in 1865 described as a Clothilla,' 
Mr. Lewis must entertain a very low estimate of the iutelhgence of ento- 
mologists if he thinks they will be convinced by such a verbal quibble. 
Entomologists describe insects, and apply names to the insects ; they do 
not describe names, and attach insects to the names. On two different 
occasions Dr. Hagen applied the same name to two different insects having 
opposite structural characters, on each occasion describing the two insects, 
and describing them as having opposite structural characters. And Mr. 
Lewis gravely contends that ' the same insect is described by Dr. Hagen 
twice over, on two adjoining pages, with opposite structural characters'! 
Because insect A with one set of characters was at one time called ' pulsa- 
toria, Linne,' and insect B with another set of characters is at another time 
called 'pulsatoria, Linne,' therefore (says Mr. Lewis) the same insect is 
described twice over with opposite structural characters ! It has never 
been my lot to encounter a more charming Non sequitur. And on this, 
and on this alone, Mr. Lewis has founded the charge of 'astonishing 
chicanery' of which Dr. Hagen is said to have been guilty. 
" Mr. Lewis says that I have not answered the more important of his two 
cases, that the criticism impugned by me was based on two instances, but 
especially on that of Termes fatidicum, which is the climax to which Atropos 
pulsatoria was only a step. It is true I did not answer what Mr. Lewis 
said about Termes fatidicum ; my object was to correct a specific mis- 
statement, which related only to Atropos pulsatoria. On reference to the 
