and Stepliens. lu 1841 Prof. Westwood described another insect under the 

 name Clothilla studiosa, a creature not absolutely wingless, but possessing 

 two short leathery scales or winglets, and having twenty-seven joints to its 

 autenuse. So that in Dr. Hagen's Synopsis of 1861 we have: — 



Gen. Ateopos. 

 Wings wanting. Antennae with about 

 15 joints. 



S-p. A. pulsatoria. 



Gen. Clothilla. 

 With leathery winglets. Antenna? with 

 about 27 joints. 



Sp. C. studiosa. 



"Dr. Hagen's ' Synopsis of the Psocina without ocelli' (Ent. Mo. Mag. 

 ii. 131) was published in 1865. By this time he had discovered that the 

 Linnean description of Terraes pulsatorium did not accord with the insect 

 which had so long been known as Atropos pulsatoria, and had satisfied 

 himself that Liune had before him the identical species which Westwood 

 afterwards named Clothilla studiosa. That being so, Hagen applies the 

 Linnean name pulsatoria to Westwood's studiosa : the insect which has 

 hitherto been called pulsatoria (and which is the pulsatoria of most authors, 

 though not of Linne) requires a new specific name, and the next oldest is 

 found to be divinatoria of Miiller's Prodromus, dating from 1776. So that 

 in Dr. Hagen's Synopsis of 1865 we have : — 



Gen. Ateopos. 

 Without wings. Antennce with 17 joints. 



Sp. A. divinatoria. 

 (Synon. A. xmlsatoria, of authors, not of 

 Linne). 



Gen. Clothilla. 

 Wings rudimentary. Antennte with 27 



joints. 



Sp. C. pulsatoria. 

 (Synon. C. studiosa, Westwood). 



" That is to say, the insect which in 1861 was called Atropos pulsatoria 

 was in 1 865 called Atropos divinatoria ; and the insect which in 1861 was 

 called Clothilla studiosa was in 1865 called Clothilla pulsatoria. The 

 specific names are changed, but the Atropos of 1861 is the Atropos of 1865, 

 and the Clothilla of 1861 is the Clothilla of 1865 ; and instead of ' the same 

 insect being described by Dr. Hagen twice over, on two adjoining pages, with 

 opposite structural characters,' the two descriptions refer to two different 

 insects, whose opposite structural characters, and their consequent generic 

 as well as specific distinctness, were fully recognized by Dr. Hagen in 1861 

 as in 1865. 



" To this extent Mr. Lewis's criticism is well founded. Dr. Hagen in 

 1861 did describe Clothilla as having the 'legs not thickened,' whilst in 

 1865 he says of Clothilla 'femora dilated,' just as he says of Atropos 

 'femora dilated.' Now the dilatation of the femora in Atropos is very 

 prominent ; in Clothilla it is so slight as scarcely to deserve the name ; 

 the thickening or absence of thickening of the thighs is a patent distinction 



