It is a singular fact that early in 1 867, when I was commencing 

 my ' Catalogue of Satyrinae in the British Museum,' I had seen 

 neither the second nor the third parts of the ' Ileise derNovara;' and 

 not knowing in which volume the Satyrinae would be published, I 

 wrote to the Felders informing them that unless I could see proofs 

 or advance sheets it would be impossible for me to include their 

 species in my Catalogue; and that, in answer to this intimation, 

 they forwarded to me proof-sheets with plates on thin paper of the 

 second and third parts. One would have supposed, had the second 

 part been ready in an uncoloured condition, that the Felders would 

 have wished to prove the fact by sending it in its bound form with 

 thick plates. 



Now my reason for again calling attention to this vexed question 

 is from a feeling that Mr. Distant (to whom I had asserted my 

 knowledge of the antedating of Felder's second part upon authority, 

 to which, nevertheless, I was unwilling to refer) has hardly done me 

 justice in allowing it to be supposed that I retained my own name, 

 knowing that Felder's had priority. As for what he says about my 

 quoting Felder's date subsequently, he must be aware that in so doing 

 I had taken the date from the titlepage, either failing for the time 

 being to recall the fact of its inaccuracy, or inserting it between 

 inverted commas to show my disbelief in it. 



Mr. Distant is too old a friend not to be sure that I should at once 

 prefer the name proved to be of earlier date whether it displaced 

 my own or not: to retain one's own name for a species W 7 hen 

 priority has been proved for that of another author, is a childish 

 form of egotism of which, as he well knows, I was never guilty. 



