4 Mr. iMattlu-ws" liipiij to Crifici.sw.^ ov 



cannot now rememlDer their names ; but one such fact is of itself 

 sufficient to prove an amount of carelessness perhaps without 

 parallel, certainly without excuse. 



But, bad as this was, his treatment of Col. Motschulsky was 

 far worse. In a paper published in the Bull. Mosc, 1845, V. 

 IL, p. 504, entitled " Ueber die Ptiliens Eussland," Col. Mot- 

 schulsky makes the following remark, " I said in the Stettin 

 Zeitung- that I had 33 species of Ptilium, Gillmeister -wrote for 

 them, received them, and returned them saying ' none new' " 

 By the above date it is clear that the transaction alluded to 

 must have taken place previously to the publication of Dr. 

 Gillmeister's Monograph, it therefore both justifies my assertion 

 that Dr. Gillmeister had seen Col. Motschulsky's types, and 

 renders the publication of synonymy such as that given under 

 the head of " T. depreftsa," (quoted by me at length in p. xii of 

 the Introduction to the Trichopterygia Illustrata), utterly con- 

 fusing and utterly inexcusable. But that examjde of synonymy 

 is only one of many of a similar character, by means of which 

 the confusion becomes disseminated throughout the work. 



If Dr. Gillmeister had not seen Col. Motschulsky's types and 

 could not comprehend his descriptions, Avhich it is often scarcely 

 possible to do, he should have omitted their names altogether 

 from the list, or have classed them separately as " Specie,^ 

 ■incerttti" rather than have assigned them ad libitum to species 

 with which they have no connection. 



In addition to all these instances of nomenclature wilfully 

 confused, I might reasonably have asked on what grounds did 

 Dr. Gillmeister ignore the Derm, pilosellns, bnmneus, and nitkh 

 uhts of Marsham, or the Scaphidium pimctatum, of GyUenhal, 

 a name which had even then been recognized for about 40 years, 

 and in the place of this last substitute the far less expressive 

 term of Trich. alutama '\ But I thought that my case had been 

 sufficiently proved. 



Dr. Dohrn also complains that I assert that Dr. Gillmeister 

 in his Monograph did not bring forward a single fact which was 

 not previously known, except his observations on the Metamor- 

 phosis ; and to controvert my assertion cites my having adopted 

 four new species retaining the names which he had given them, 



