516 Mr. G. Newport on anew genus of Parasitic Insects. 
equally applies to Mr. Westwood’s genus Hemiptarsenus, to which 
he has assigned this as a generic character of the male. To be 
sure, in the case of Melittobia, we have the “ strikingly opposite 
analogy ” in addition, but, unfortunately, this refers to “ Stylops, 
Meloé and Sitaris,” and even as regards them it is not explained 
in what this “ strikingly opposite analogy” consists.. Yet on these 
shallow pretensions Mr. Westwood questioned the accuracy of my 
statements, and now asserts that his msect and mine are iden- 
tical, attempts to claim priority of description, and does not 
hesitate to declare im print, that “the facts (!) and charac- 
ters” (?) he had given were “sufficient to identify the insect, 
and distinguish it from every known species of the family to 
which it belongs (!).” But not only does Mr. Westwood assert this 
sufficiency on his part, and the identity of the two insects, but dis- 
courteously affirms that my description of Anthophorabiais “ 
fectly unintelligible,’ and then, for some, no doubt, most cogent 
reasons best known to him, he heads his description published on 
the 12th of May as follows: ‘ Melittobia, Westw. 1847; Anthopho- 
rabia, Newp.1849.” Now im this very description he has given the 
same number of characters for his insect, and has followed the 
exact order of notification of parts which I have followed in mine, 
published on the 24th of March ; and while he modestly asserts 
that siz out of the nine characters which I have given are erro- 
neous, he has copied, in whole or in part, the very words I have 
employed, and the very order in which I have employed them in 
five out of these nine proscribed unintelligible characters! Is it 
probable. that this could have been accidental on the part of one 
who is ever so especially alive to his own advantage? Will the 
reader believe that any one who has any regard for his own credit 
or for public opinion, could be capable of such an attempt at im- 
position on his patience and his judgement? Yet such are the 
facts, as a comparison of Mr. Westwood’s description with mine 
in the ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle,’ pages 295 and 183, will prove. 
Whether the characters given for Anthophorabia are sufficient 
to identify the insect or not, I leave entirely to the decision of 
others. When these are compared with those now published of 
Melittobia, the asserted identity of the two insects appears to be 
extremely doubtful: thus the male Anthophorabia has ocelli 
instead of compound eyes; Melittobia is described as having 
neither compound eyes nor ocelli: Anthophorabia has the middle 
portion of the antenna “large and globose ;”’ Melittobia has the 
corresponding portion of this organ “ very small and subannu- 
lose.” 
But assuming for an instant, what Mr. Westwood is nlesiiea 
to assert as a positive fact, that. the two are identical, and pre- 
suming that his description corrects errors in detail in mine, 
RE A Pe WIA Solty: 
ee NE me TIE NER Skea IS oe eS tere CTE” Hoe ae ee ee ee aT 
ee 
poet: 
Lute ets je dele tests a: aabiine iter <2) 
ep 
