" Tricht>i)t('.nj(jia Illadrata." 5 



These Dr. Dohrn terms four new facts ; he does not observe 

 that my assertion referred to life-history and anatomy, and 

 appears also to forget that two of these fonr species had been 

 previously described by Dr. Erichson, to whom according to the 

 strict law of priority I might therefore have assigned them. 

 But knowing the unhandsome manner in which Dr. Erichson 

 had abused the confidence of Gilhneister and had unkindly 

 anticipated his work, I preferred to attach the name of " Gill- 

 meister" to the species in question. If I committed a faxilt, it 

 arose from my desire to do justice to Gillmeister. 



When to the confusion of nomenclature pervading the whole 

 'Monograph is added the great amount of erroneous anatomy, 

 the conspicuous Labial Palpi utterly ignored, a mutilated portion 

 of the Stipes figured as the true Mandible, and false delineations 

 given of the Mentum and adjacent organs of the lower part of 

 the mouth; and forms so totally diverse as the species of Ptinella 

 and PtHiud'mm comprehended under one and the same generic 

 appellation; I think that I was fully justified in saying that such 

 work left the Trichopterygia in a state of confusion far worse 

 than that in which it found them. 



In the case of Col. Motschidsky, my first impressions 

 experienced a total revidsion. I commenced work a disciple of 

 the common belief in his universal inaccuracy ; I had imbibed 

 the idea that his species were mere varieties, separated on unten- 

 able characters. Gradually step by step as my own knowledge of 

 these insects increased, so pari passu did my conviction that Col. 

 Motschulsky was right in his views. To assist in arriving at 

 the truth, [ determined to communicate at once with him and 

 obtain authentic types of his species. These in large numbers 

 he immediately forwarded to me with the same ready kindness 

 as he had formerly shown to Gillmeister, but with a very difler- 

 ent result. [ found that though his descriptions were very 

 obscure, his types were in most cases sufficient to convince any 

 one of their specific value. Indeed if an experienced Entomolo- 

 gist has for many years turned his attention to the study of any 

 special class of insects, he may reasonably be supposed to know 

 more of that class than others who have comparatively neglected 

 them. I soon found this to be true of Col. Motschidsky, and 



