Mr. G. Newport on a new genus of Parasitic Insects. 123 
fully finished I have ever made, were on the table of the Lin- 
nean Society when my paper was read, on the 20th of March, 
and also on the Ist of May; on which latter occasion they were 
examined for a few minutes ouly by Mr. Westwood. Yet he 
now makes the following assertion : “ Having seen Mr. Newport’s 
drawings made seventeen years ago, I do not hesitate to state that 
his description has been drawn up from this imperfect sketch (!), 
and that seven out of the nine generic characters given by him 
in the ‘ Gard. Chronicle,’ p. 183, are erroneous.” Indeed! Seven 
characters erroneous !!_ Mr. Westwood’s former statement (Gard. 
Chronicle, p. 295) was, that szz out of nine were wrong. But 
now he discovers “ seven,’—size of the head, the antenne, the 
wings, and the tarsi of the female, antennz and eyes of the male, 
and size of the insect. Truly, here are seven. First then as re- 
gards size. I have described my insect as being of the Lillipu- 
tian dimension of one line. Mr. Westwood says, No, it is exactly 
three-quarters. Many thanks for this, and the other equally 
important corrections, if confirmed. I have said the head of the 
insect is wider than the thorax. Mr. Westwood says it is not. 
According to him, I have overlooked some joints in the antennee 
and some peculiarities of the wings. Possible, certainly. But the 
admission of the possibility is not an assent to the assertion, 
without proof. In the tarsi, however, he thinks that I have 
seen too much. 
As to the male insect he asserts that it has no eyes whatever, 
but that it has more joints in its antennz than I have described. 
Yet in all this, while affirming the identity of his insect with 
mine, he keeps out of view the fact that the one he refers to is a 
native of France, and that which I have described is indigenous 
to this country ; and that the middle portion of the antenna in 
my insect is “large and globose,” while the corresponding part 
in his, according to his description, is “ very small and suban- 
nulose.” Nevertheless he “does not hesitate” to “ reaffirm ”’ 
the identity of two insects, one of which he has never sven! But 
further, he “affirms,” and possibly may hereafter “ reaffirm,” 
that some of the characters I have given for my insect, “namely 
the veins of the wings and the five-jointed tarsi, neither belong 
to the family nor subfamily to which the insect is to be referred, 
whilst the possession of stemmatous eyes by the male is disproved 
by every known species of winged insect, whereas it 1s as essen- 
tially a character of some of the Ametabolous tribes.” | Accord- 
ing to this lucid view, which seems to have been arrived at 
through one of Mr. Westwood’s “ strikingly opposite analogies,” 
if a winged insect has not compound eyes it cannot have eyes at 
all. Now it was the peculiarity of my insect possessing stem- 
matous eyes that led to the introduction of a description of it in 
