- M>-- Mattllcws' lt,'i,l;l in r',vV/V/.s/,/.v „„ 



term.s for many centuries out of use, for the purpose, as it woulil 

 certainly appear, of exliibitino- one's su])erior knowledge (if 

 ancient geography. 



With respect to the plates no fault has been found Mith those 

 which exhibit the genera, but a little more care on the part of 

 the engraver would have greatly improved both the appearance 

 and utility of those devoted to the species. Tliis may very 

 easily be proved by comparing Plates Nos. 29 and 30 with any 

 of those which preceed them, in many of which the superficial 

 sculpture has been very inadequately expressed, and requires a 

 careful comparison with the description of the species. 



But it is to the class of criticisms which assail my observations 

 upon previous authors that I wish to direct attention. None of 

 my remarks were made without careful consideration, and as 

 they are supported by clear and obvious proofs, I trust to be 

 able to establish the truth of all that I have written. Of 

 criticisms of this class that published in the "Stettin Ent 

 Zeitung, XXXIV, p. 398, from the pen of Dr. Dohrn, is the most 

 important and the most detailed. T will therefore examine his 

 remarks seriatim. Referring to my review of GiUmeister's 

 " Trichopterygia," Dr. Dohrn first of all quotes a notice of that 

 same work publi.shed in the " Stettin Ent. Zeitung, T. VII, p. 59, 

 (1846), in which Dr. Scliaum says "the descriptions are 

 splendid, short and to the point, they every where put proper 

 stress upon the specific differences. But the most perfect in this 

 classical work are the Plates, drawn by the author and engraved 

 by Sturm ; the most i^erfect specimens Avhieh the Entomological 

 Icononographie has to show." Dr. Dohrn then (luotes my own 

 observations on Gillmeister (vid. Trichopterygia Illustrata, 

 Introduction p. xii), and subsequently remarks " that it is more 

 than curious that Schaum should call a work "splendid, per- 

 fect, and classical," of which Matthews' says that he only made 

 the confusion worse confounded, added nothing but what was 

 known, ignored the work of other Entomologists and misused 

 their liberality." But to say that Dr. Schaum designated Gill- 

 meister's work as " splendid, perfect, and classical," is to affix a 

 meaning to the learned Doctor's words which they clearly do not 

 possess; the terms splendid and perfect express merely Dr. 

 Schaum's . .pinion „f fl,,. dp.^f.riptions and plates. Whether Dr." 



