between the two genera ; and I cannot but believe that there is an un- 

 fortunate omission of the negative in Ent. Mo. Mag. ii. 122, and that the 

 description of Clothilla ought to have been ' femora not dilated,' in contra- 

 distinction to the ' femora dilated ' of Atropos. So far from its being the 

 fact, as suggested by Mr. Lewis, that the alteration from the description of 

 1861 was designedly made in order to admit the Linnean pulsatoria into 

 Clothilla, Dr. Hagen's view is that the insect with the dilated femora is not 

 the Linnean pulsatoria at all, but that the Linnean pulsatoria is Westwood's 

 studiosa, with the legs not thickened." 



After referring to another discrepancy between the descriptions of 1861 

 and 1865, not mentioned by Mr. Lewis — namely, that the " eyes yellowish" 

 of A. pulsatoria in 1861 become " eyes black" in the description of A. divina- 

 toria in 1865 — and pointing out that the " eyes yellowish " was a mistake, 

 perhaps taken (blindly) from the Linnean ocullfiavi, Mr. Dunning observed 

 that, though the synonymy was not given at length in Ent. Mo. Mag., 

 vol. ii., Dr. Hagen did say in so many w"ords that A. divinatoria " is 

 A. pulsatoria of Westwood and authors " other than Linne, i. e. the A. pul- 

 satoria of Ent. Ann. 1 861, and that C. pulsatoria " is apparently the true 

 Termes pulsatorium of Linne, C. studiosa of Westwood," i. e. the C. studiosa 

 of Ent. Ann. 1861. Thus Dr. Hagen himself plainly pointed out which 

 insect he intended by each description, — pointed out, in short, that, notwith- 

 standing the change of the specific names, notwithstanding any variations in 

 the descriptions, the Atropos and Clothilla of 1865 were respectively the 

 Atropos and Clothilla of 1861. And if any doubt could still be felt on the 

 subject, it would be removed by a perusal of Dr. Hagen's later papers in 

 Stett. Ent. Zeit. 1866, pp. 188 and 233, and Verb, zool.-bot. Gesells. in 

 Wien, 1866, p. 201. 



The writer then proceeded to say that he was at a loss to conceive how 

 Mr. Lewis could have fallen into the mistake of supposing that the Atropos 

 of 1861 was the Clothilla of 186?). " The head and front of Dr. Hagen's 

 offending is, that he has substituted another name for pulsatoria, that 

 (Atropos) pulsatoria has been superseded ; in other words, that the pulsatoria 

 of 1865 is not the pulsatoria of 1861. Mr. Lewis's complaint has its 

 foundation in the facts that the (Atropos) pulsatoria of 1861 is called 

 (Atropos) divinatoria in 1865, and that the (Clothilla) pulsatoria of 1865 is 

 not the (Atropos) pulsatoria of 1861. Yet we are told that the Atropos of 

 1861 is the Clothilla of 18G5 ! If this were really so, the pulsatoria of 

 1865 -would be the pulsatoria of 1861, Dr. Hagen would be calling by the 

 Linnean name that which he is now satisfied is not the Linnean insect, and 

 Mr. Lewis might have cited him as (in practice, if not in theory) a supporter 

 of Communis error!" 



In conclusion, Mr. Dunning remarked that he had purposely abstained 

 from discussing the correctness of Dr. Hagen's determination of the Linnean 

 species or the propriety of the change of nomenclature which Dr. Hagen 



