﻿120 
  

  

  feed 
  upon 
  dried 
  animal 
  matter 
  and 
  provisions, 
  and 
  never 
  upon 
  wood 
  ; 
  so 
  that 
  he 
  

   thought 
  it 
  was 
  not 
  the 
  real 
  depredator, 
  and 
  he 
  now 
  awaited 
  a 
  reply 
  to 
  a 
  communica- 
  

   tion 
  to 
  this 
  effect 
  which 
  he 
  had 
  made 
  to 
  Mr. 
  Lovell. 
  

   Mr. 
  Douglas 
  read 
  the 
  following 
  note 
  •. 
  — 
  

  

  " 
  In 
  the 
  ' 
  Entomologische 
  Zeitung' 
  for 
  May, 
  is 
  a 
  note 
  by 
  Dr. 
  H. 
  Hageu, 
  upon 
  a 
  

   work 
  published 
  in 
  London 
  in 
  1773, 
  intituled 
  'A 
  Decade 
  of 
  Curious 
  Insects: 
  some 
  of 
  

   them 
  not 
  described 
  before, 
  shewn 
  in 
  their 
  natural 
  size, 
  and 
  as 
  they 
  appear 
  enlarg'd 
  

   before 
  the 
  Lucernal 
  Microscope, 
  in 
  which 
  the 
  Solar 
  Apparatus 
  is 
  artificially 
  illumi- 
  

   nated 
  : 
  with 
  their 
  History, 
  Characters, 
  Manners 
  and 
  Places 
  of 
  Abode 
  ; 
  on 
  ten 
  4to 
  

   plates 
  and 
  their 
  explanations, 
  drawn 
  and 
  engraved 
  from 
  Nature 
  by 
  J. 
  Hill, 
  Member 
  

   of 
  the 
  Imperial 
  Academy.' 
  This 
  work, 
  Dr. 
  Hagen 
  says, 
  has 
  been 
  rendered 
  notorious 
  

   by 
  the 
  remark 
  of 
  Fabricius 
  in 
  his 
  ' 
  Species 
  Insectorum 
  ' 
  (Pref. 
  p. 
  8), 
  — 
  ' 
  at 
  damnandae 
  

   memoricB 
  J. 
  Hill, 
  qui 
  decadem 
  Insectorum 
  Londini 
  1773, 
  4to, 
  figuris 
  fictitiis 
  edidit.' 
  

   After 
  quoting 
  on 
  this 
  point 
  a 
  remark 
  of 
  Percheron, 
  in 
  his 
  ' 
  Bibliographic,' 
  — 
  ' 
  C'est 
  

   une 
  question 
  que 
  Ton 
  peut 
  examiner 
  de 
  nouveau, 
  maintenant 
  que 
  Ton 
  possede 
  tant 
  de 
  

   raateriaux 
  que 
  Fabricius 
  ne 
  connaissait 
  pas,' 
  — 
  Dr. 
  Hagen 
  goes 
  on 
  to 
  say, 
  for 
  reasons 
  

   which 
  he 
  gives, 
  that 
  he 
  does 
  not 
  think 
  the 
  figures 
  are 
  fictitious 
  ; 
  at 
  the 
  same 
  time 
  al- 
  

   lowing, 
  that 
  even 
  for 
  the 
  period 
  at 
  which 
  they 
  appeared, 
  they 
  are 
  very 
  bad, 
  and 
  that 
  

   the 
  descriptions 
  are 
  no 
  belter. 
  As 
  an 
  example, 
  he 
  gives 
  the 
  remark 
  upon 
  Alucita 
  pal- 
  

   lida: 
  — 
  ' 
  A 
  studious 
  gentleman, 
  very 
  subject 
  to 
  the 
  headache, 
  sneezing 
  one 
  day 
  with 
  

   violence, 
  as 
  he 
  was 
  writing, 
  saw 
  some 
  atoms 
  a 
  moment 
  afterward 
  upon 
  a 
  sheet 
  of 
  white 
  

   paper 
  that 
  lay 
  upon 
  his 
  table,' 
  &c. 
  This, 
  he 
  says, 
  ' 
  Westwood, 
  in 
  his 
  'Introduction' 
  

   (vol. 
  ii. 
  p. 
  5), 
  quotes 
  without 
  further 
  remark, 
  so 
  that 
  he 
  does 
  not 
  seem 
  to 
  have 
  suspected 
  

   any 
  deception. 
  Stephens, 
  and 
  all 
  the 
  other 
  English 
  authors, 
  entirely 
  ignore 
  Hill's 
  

   work, 
  and 
  yet 
  his 
  figures 
  are 
  not 
  worse 
  than 
  fig. 
  3, 
  tab. 
  6, 
  in 
  Harris's 
  ' 
  Exposition,' 
  

   from 
  which 
  Stephens, 
  without 
  any 
  remark, 
  makes 
  out 
  Caenis 
  Harrisella, 
  a 
  new, 
  and, 
  to 
  

   him, 
  unknown 
  species.' 
  

  

  " 
  Dr. 
  Hagen 
  gives 
  the 
  following 
  remarks 
  upon 
  Hill's 
  figures, 
  and 
  adds 
  that 
  he 
  

   should 
  be 
  happy 
  to 
  hear 
  the 
  opinions 
  of 
  other, 
  and 
  particularly 
  English, 
  entomologists, 
  

   on 
  this 
  matter: 
  — 
  

  

  " 
  Tab. 
  1. 
  Tenthredo 
  luctuosa, 
  from 
  Uxbridge. 
  (A 
  small 
  Hymenopterou). 
  

  

  " 
  Tab. 
  2. 
  Tenthredo 
  variegata, 
  from 
  England. 
  (A 
  small 
  Hymenopterou). 
  

  

  " 
  Tab. 
  3. 
  Sphex 
  pectinipes, 
  from 
  Ireland. 
  (Not 
  to 
  be 
  made 
  out). 
  

  

  " 
  Tab. 
  4. 
  Myrmeleon 
  Formicarium, 
  from 
  France 
  and 
  Italy. 
  (Doubtless 
  M. 
  tetra- 
  

   grammicum). 
  

  

  " 
  Tab. 
  6. 
  Cynips 
  Querciis-folii, 
  from 
  Norway. 
  (Bad, 
  but 
  a 
  Hymenopteron). 
  

  

  " 
  Tab. 
  7. 
  Ephemera 
  Culiciformis, 
  from 
  Esher, 
  in 
  England. 
  (Very 
  bad, 
  but 
  cer- 
  

   tainly 
  a 
  small 
  species 
  of 
  Perlidae). 
  

  

  " 
  Tab. 
  8. 
  Ephemera 
  rujiestris, 
  from 
  London. 
  (Very 
  bad, 
  but 
  doubtless 
  a 
  small 
  

   Phryganea). 
  

  

  " 
  Tab. 
  9. 
  Alucita 
  pallida, 
  from 
  England. 
  (A 
  very 
  small 
  Thrips). 
  

  

  "Tab. 
  10. 
  Alucita 
  fulva, 
  from 
  England. 
  (A 
  Phlceothrips)." 
  

  

  Mr. 
  Westwood 
  said 
  the 
  figures 
  were 
  very 
  bad, 
  and 
  that 
  it 
  was 
  scarcely 
  possible 
  to 
  

   recognise 
  the 
  species 
  ; 
  and 
  with 
  regard 
  to 
  the 
  insects 
  which 
  " 
  the 
  studious 
  gentleman 
  " 
  

   sneezed, 
  he 
  thought 
  it 
  probable 
  that 
  he 
  had 
  previously 
  drawn 
  them 
  into 
  his 
  nose 
  by 
  

   smelling 
  flowers. 
  

  

  MAll 
  s, 
  .-u-i. 
  

  

  