xlii 



'* Now take up the Entomologist's Annual for 1861, and you find in 

 Dr. Hagen's Synopsis of the British Psocidse (p. 22) the fatidica of West- 

 wood and Stepliens placed in a group distinguished by the presence 

 of ocelli; and in a genus Lachesis described as having (in the male) 

 four wings shorter than the abdomen. That is the first step. The 

 insect which Linne gave as apterous in both sexes has four wings in the 

 male in 18G1. 



" Bear in mind that Hagen's fatidica of 1861 has ocelli and short wings. 

 Go to the ' fatidica, Linne; of Hagen in 1865 (2 Ent. Mo. Mag. 121). In 

 the first place you find it in a paper whose very title is ' Synopsis of Psocina 

 without ocelli,' and next in a genus (Atropos) whose character is to be 

 wingless ! 



"Next, Dr. Hagen, in this same 'Synopsis of Psocina without ocelli,' 

 includes the fatidica of Westwood (as being now a different insect from the 

 fatidica of Linne), completely ignoring the presence of ocelli which he 

 made a leading sectional character (expressed in capital letters) four years 

 before ! 



" Once more : Dr. Hagen represents Linne as giving ' Habitat Southern 

 Europe, in dried plants received from Eolander.' The dried plants were 

 sent by Ltifling, and Rolander's name does not occur at all in connection 

 with the insect. 



*' Now, the dodging about of this insect, or this supposed insect, from 

 one section and genus to another section and opposite genus would have a 

 justification of some kind if this treatment had been occasioned by dis- 

 coveries made in the intervening periods. Well ; none such were made. 

 Says Dr. Hagen in 1801 : — 



" ' Obs. I am not accurately acquainted with this genus and species ; 

 several specimens in my collection which agree with Westwood's description 

 lead me to suppose that they are only a peculiar form of some species of 

 Psocus in which the wings are undeveloped (!), &c.' 



"Let us see then what discoveries he made before 1805. 'L. Fatidica, 

 Westwood. Unknown to me'; July, 1805 (2 Ent. Mo. Mag. 124). 'Atropos 

 Fatidica, Linne. I do not know this species'; July, 1805. 



" Mr. Dunning says with perfect truth that what Dr. Hagen did in the 

 case of pulsatoria was to transfer a name from one insect which he knew to 

 another insect which he knew. But what the author has done in the case 

 of the idea fatidicura is to invest the same thing first with one set of 

 characters and then with another set of characters, &c., while he has never 

 seen or identified the insect, and never met with or heard of any one who 

 has truly done so in his belief." 



Mr. Lewis remarked, in conclusion, that the more important of the two 

 cases had not been answered by Mr. Dunning ; and that the criticism im- 

 pugned by him had been based on both the two instances cited, but especially 



