126 Mr. J. W. Duuning on 



In a subsequent paper, 'Zur Genealogie der Schmetter- 

 linge" (Stett. Ent. Zeit. 1870, p. 202) Speyer makes a 

 detailed comparison of the structure and development of 

 the Lepidoptera and Trichoptera, and again concludes 

 that Acentropus is a true moth, which recalls the Phry- 

 ganeina only by its aquatic and branchiiferous larva, whilst 

 the imago has at most but a supei'ficial resemblance to 

 them, but has the typical character, both of wing and 

 body, of a moth, and even in that which distinguishes it 

 from other Lepidoptera, it does not approach the Phry- 

 ganeina, nor in that particular which is most conclusive, 

 the formation of the parts of the mouth. 



After these quotations from Speyer, it seems almost 

 surplusage to add, that in 1870, Milliere figured Acentro- 

 pus in his 'Iconographie de Lepidopteres,' and Knaggs 

 included it in his List of Lepidoptera; and that in 1871, 

 Ritsema, in his historical retrospect of the genus, pub- 

 lished in the 'Tijdschi-ift voor Entomologie,^ unhesita- 

 tingly considered the insect to be a moth. 



But in 1872, Newman returns to the subject, and after 

 informing us that ' it is nothing more than a conventional 

 idea, or sometimes a convenient assumption," that wing- 

 scales are confined to Lepidoptera, he adds, that " the 

 assumption is utilized now and then to set up some hobby, 

 such for instance as the Lepidopterous nature of Acentria, 

 which assumption remains standing only until some one 

 of more extended or more careful powers of observation, or 

 more skilled in logical deductions, knocks it down again " 

 (Entom. vi. 10). 



We all know, that every periodical has a ''some one" 

 who is necessarily, and ex ojficio, of more extended and more 

 careful powers of observation, and more skilled in logical 

 deductions, than any other one who presumes to differ 

 from him. But making due allowance for the " conven- 

 tional idea" of the omniscience, and the "convenient 

 assumption" of the infallibility of editors in general, (and 

 speaking in all good-humour, and with every respect for 

 ray friend) I cannot characterize this sentence otherwise 

 than as editorial "bounce." It was no part of my plan 

 to have given the preceding sketch, but I have been led 

 to do so by reading the remarks of the editor of 'The 

 Entomologist,' which I have just quoted. Of course, 

 Newman may be right, and all the world wrong ; and 

 equally of course, if Newman is wrong, he is entitled to 

 retain his own opinion ; but at the risk of repeating a 



