xli 



before it lay between that date and 1865. 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. I am in my turn surprised that Mr. Dunning should 

 think this amounts to nothing. To make a Linnean species in 1861 the 

 type of one genus (without a note of doubt of any sort, kind, or description), 

 and in 1865 make it the type of another genus with opposite structural 

 characters, is a grave and not a trivial matter — more particularly when it is a 

 part of the author's own case that if he had not written his Synopsis before 

 he had ever studied the question, he must have found out he was wrong ! 

 Mr. Dunning would appear to have concluded that I was under some mis- 

 conception, from failing to understand that I consider worthy of reprobation 

 what he passes by as nothing," 



With regard to Stett. Ent. Zeit. 1806, and Verb, zool.-bot. Gesells. in 

 "Wien, 1866, Mr. Lewis remarked that these references (with which as a fact 

 he was before acquainted) did not affect the question of Dr. Hagen 's con- 

 sistency or inconsistency in 1861 and 1865 ; and added : "A perusal of the 

 passages cited gives rise to one obvious reflection. The more successful the 

 author is in showing that (when he paid attention to them) the facts were 

 clearly in one direction, the more blameworthy he appears to be for having 

 read them the other way before. The simple fact is that in 1861 Dr. Hagen 

 published a Synopsis of the British Psocidoe without an investigation of the 

 species. That is the back-bone of Mr. Duuning's remarks, and is, I presume, 

 the thing he has come forward to justify. Chivalrous as that effort un- 

 doubtedly is, I protest Dr. Hagen will owe Mr. Dunning no thanks 

 for it." 



" In the passage quoted I draw attention to this. Termes fatidicum was 

 an insect of which Dr. Hagen, like all other people, knew absolutely nothing 

 at all — and Dr. Hagen, in spite of that, took upon himself to invest this 

 impalpable idea with a number of minute and special characteristics, such 

 as he could only have ascertained if he had had the thing under his micro- 

 scope. There could hardly be a more significant example of the bad way 

 some authors have got into in treating the old naines than this case of 

 Termes fatidicum ; and if the author under discussion be a model author, 

 then we have a model instance, and T am glad of it. 



" The genus Termes of Linne is placed in his order ' Aptera,' the solitary 

 character of which is 'Alas nuUoe in omni sexu.' The description of 

 fatidicum is ' abdomen ovate, mouth pale, eyes fuscous ; ' and to this is 

 added, 'like pulsatorium, but twice as large.' Two English authors, West- 

 wood and Stephens, have identified ' fatidicum, Linne,'' with an insect which 

 came under their observation. The former speaks of ' the insufficiently 

 characterised fatidicum,' evidently referring to the Linnean description; the 

 latter in terms calls his insect 'fatidicum of Linne.' 



