* Discussion,' it will be seen that Dr. Hageu's treatment of T. fatidicum was 
a * EiDicuLous FARCE,' but his treatment of A. pulsatoria was ' astonishing 
chicanery.' To me the word ' chicanery ' has an ugly sound ; it was that 
word which offended my ear, and it was to the charge of chicanery that 
I addressed myself. And the charge then made as to A. pulsatoria having 
been (as I submit) refuted, Mr. Lewis now brings T. fatidicum to the front, 
and makes a lot of fresh charges based on Dr. Hageu's treatment of this 
insect, or if Mr. Lewis prefers it ' this supposed insect.' It is as if my 
learned friend were prosecuting a mau (say) for bigamy, and after the 
defence has been heard, the prosecutor replies by attempting to show that 
the accused has at all events committed forgery ! As before, I decline to 
discuss the ' farce,' preferring to attend to one thing at a time. 
"Mr. Lewis goes on to say, 'It is the gist of my complaint that 
Dr. Hagen taught me in 1861 the exact opposite of what he taught me in 
1865, though all the same materials were to his hand at the one time as at 
the other. / am in my turn surprised that Mr. Dunning should think this 
amounts to nothing.' Mr. Lewis's surprise is uncalled for; Mr. Dunning 
has neither said that this amounts to nothing, nor does he think so. The 
ground now alleged may or may not be a good ground of complaint against 
Dr. Hagen ; but it is quite a different complaint from that which was made 
in the ' Discussion,' p. 54. The original objection was that the change of 
name ought not to have been made at all ; the objection now is that 
Dr. Hagen ought to have known in 1801 the facts which induced him to 
make the change in 1865. 'The simple fact is that in 1861 Dr. Hagen 
published a Synopsis of the British Psocidse without an investigation of the 
species. That is the back-bone of Mr. Dunning's remarks, and is, I pre- 
sume, the thing he has come forward to justify.' Mr. Lewis presumes too 
much ; I have not attempted to justify what Dr. Hagen actually did, much 
less have I come forward to justify what Mr. Lewis, without any personal 
knowledge of the circumstances, asserts to be 'the simple fact,' but which 
of my own knowledge I say is not a fact. If Mr. Lewis's simple fact is the 
back-bone of my remarks, the back-bone was very carefully extracted, and 
my remarks as delivered were invertebrate. Upon what authority, or 
supposed authority, it is stated that Dr. Hagen published his Synopsis of 
1861 without an investigation of the species, I cannot conjecture. But if 
there be any question on this point, it is fortunate that there are still living 
several entomologists who can testify to the fact of the investigation having 
been made. In truth, Dr. Hagen came over to this country for the very 
purpose of studying the British species. 
" That subsequent investigation has proved the existence of errors in the 
Synopsis of 1861 is perfectly true. But faulty as it was, it did good service 
in its day ; and no one has more readily admitted its shortcomings and 
corrected its errors than Dr. Hagen himself. To my mind, readiness to 
