32 DR. BRACKENRIDGE CLEMENS' LETTERS. 



any inconvenience, or without having it taken for this pur- 

 pose alone, it will give me much pleasure. 



I was very glad to hear you had succeeded in breeding 

 A. splendoriferella, and am pleased that the species is so 

 interesting in your view. 



In return I have an announcement to make which I think 

 will somewhat surprise you. I have at last succeeded in 

 breeding a Nepticula, and the species is so very like your 

 Angulifasciella, both in ornamentation, as given in Vol. I. of 

 the (f Nat. Hist, of the Tineina," and in its preparatory 

 states, that I am much inclined to believe it the same 

 insect. Indeed my feeling in this respect amounts almost 

 to a conviction, and yet I have named it Rubifoliella from 

 its food plant, merely, however, because at the time I de- 

 scribed it I had but a single specimen. Since that time 

 another imago has made its appearance. During the present 

 season I will make special search for it and hope to secure 

 specimens in the pupa state for you. You will find the 

 entire history of the species detailed in a paper which I will 

 send to you in July. I enclose in this note a rough sketch 

 of the neuration of the species, in which you will notice that 

 the discoidal ceh 1 of the fore-wings is closed by a faint nervure 

 near the base. Will you please inform me whether in 

 Angulifasciella this peculiarity exists? Should these insects 

 prove to be the same, will it not be a very interesting fact in 

 geographical distribution? At least it appears so to my 

 mind when I consider its minuteness and the oceanic interval 

 which separates us from England or the continent of 

 Europe. 



I have been greatly interested in Mr. Darwin's theory of 

 the origin of species, and Dr. Hooker's introductory essay to 

 the Tasmanian Flora. I cannot but admire the boldness 

 of the former and the apparent candour with which he urges 

 his views ; but whilst he succeeds in jostling rudely ordinarily 

 received views, and engendering doubts from his ingenious 

 reasoning, he does not leave on the mind a sense of conviction. 

 This theory of profitable modifications of structure resulting 



