" TrichoptiM-ijiiia III ad rata." 9 



was received from M. le Coiutti de Mniszecli, ticketed thus, 

 " California Mdkll.ii." 



In the last part of his Review, Dr. Dohrn would seem to 

 imply that I made use of Latin in order to exhibit my superior 

 education ; the truth is that I made use of Latin, especially in 

 the original descriptions transcribed from other authors, in order 

 to assist persons as ujaorant as myself, those who cannot read 

 the languages of G-ermany, Sweden, or Russia. Had I used 

 entirely my native tongue the difficulty would have been 

 increased, as still fewer coidd have read English. By making 

 use of a medium of communication universally recognized, I 

 hoped to render my meaning intelligible to all. In reference to 

 the mistakes which I have made, I can only hope that anyone 

 who has read the Latin in the pages devoted to the anatomy of 

 the Trichoptenj(jia, would hardly suppose that such an outrageous 

 blunder as " in paludibus Gonitis Cantabridgiensibus," (triunn)h- 

 antly paraded hj Dr. Dohrn), could have j)roceeded from ignor- 

 ance of the language. Its true history is this, I had originally 

 written " in paludibus Comtis Cantabridgiensis," and subse- 

 quently altered it thus, " in paludibus Cantabridgiensibus," the 

 obliteration was overlooked by the printer, and althinujlt cor- 

 rected a second time in the proof-sheet, the error was again with 

 extreme carelessness reproduced in the final impression in all its 

 deformity, a fact unnoticed by me until too late to rectify the 

 mistake. " Tauria" is cpioted from Motschulsky, and left 

 unaltered because I did not know for certain whether he 

 intended it for the Crimea. The transposition of the vowels in 

 " Madiera" arose from my own carelessness in writing the word 

 originally, and in overlooking the error in the proof. This name 

 is spelled correctly in my extracts from Mr. W(.)Ilaston. 



I think that I have now noticed all the criticisms of Dr. 

 Dohrn. Tlie last few lines of his Review express, I would fain 

 believe, the real feelings of their writer more truly than his 

 previous remarks. I am not surprised that Dr. Dohrn shoidd 

 have taken uu arms in defence of his countryman, I respect and 

 honour his spirit, though I doubt the expediency of eliciting 

 more positive proofs of his friend's uiisdoings. 1 have endea- 

 voured on my own behalf to support my position, and if in so 

 doing I have anywhere exldbited unnecessary asperity, I fear the 



