Insects. 8915 
in the two insects, which is the very thing we want some of our members to do. In 
the ‘ Zovlogist’ (Zool. 8472) Mr. Newman remarks, ‘*I think that the Secretary of the 
Society would do well not to give any decision as that of the Society collectively, but 
assign each opinion to the member who expressed it.” I quite agree with Mr. New- 
man on this point, so that the opinion of any member will only go for what it is 
worth ; but, at the same time, I must say that our Secretary was quite right in the 
report, in stating that the Society decided the question, for I see in the ‘ Zoologist, 
‘Proceedings of Societies, ‘ Entomological Society, which means the report or pro- 
ceedings of a Meeting. If so, then the Meeting was the Society, and if the Meeting was 
unanimous in a decision, then the Meeting being the Society for the time being, it is 
quite correct to say that the Society settled the question.”—Novah Greening, in ‘ Pro- 
ceedings of the Northern Entomological Society.’ 
{With regard to the specific distinctness or otherwise of Dianthecia cap- 
sophila, I am perfectly willing to bow to Mr. Greening’s judgment, or to leave the 
question seb judice, fur I do not conceive it possible that an error so grave as, the 
making a variety into a species, or sinking a species as a variety, can be maintained for 
any length of time in this age of searching inquiry, but I quote the paper at length 
and verbatim, because, as a lover of fair play, I was desirous of learning what could be 
said in reply to Mr. Barrett’s observations (Zool. 8471) on the same subject, and no 
other reply had previously reached me that I could possibly print. Then, again, 
I have italicized two passages to which I particularly wish to invite attention: the 
first contains a sentiment which I most heartily endorse; the whole paragraph is 
severe, but not more so than was absolutely necessary; and I cannot sufficiently 
eulogize the courage and good sense of a President who dare so express himself. 
With the second italicized paragraph I also entirely concur: I regard the Proceedings 
of an authorized Meeting as the Proceedings of the Society : what I object to is that 
the responsibility and the merit of certain individual opinions is taken from the 
individuals expressing them and given to a collective body. I never recollect seeing 
such a decision recorded in the Proceedings of any other scientific meeting: if the 
Secretary had informed us that the Rev. Joseph Greene, or Mr. Doubleday, or Mr. Bond, 
or Mr, Birchall, or any other competent entomologist, expressed decided opinions on 
a question of this kind, we should all peruse those opinions with respect, but a Society 
forms no decision of the kind reported.— #. Newman.] 
Description of Dianthecia Barrettii of H. Doubleday.—Thorax fuscous, mottled 
with whitish. Abdomen fuscous, conical in the female, the ovipositor slightly pro- 
duced. Anterior wings fuscous, with a pale patch at the base, an oblique interrupted 
pale fascia extending from about the middle of the costa to the anal angle. Posterior 
margin of the wings also pale, bordered by an indistinct paler striga, forming a rather 
obscure W towards the anal angle. A very distinct black line, emitting a branch, 
connects the ordinary strige, as in Hadena Geniste; the branch from this line 
divides the oblique pale fascia into two unequal portions, of which the upper is the 
larger; cilia spotted with fuscous and white. The whole of the anterior wings are 
thickly irrorated with minute fuscous dots, which renders all the markings very un- 
defined; the ordinary stigmata are indicated by two pale spots. Posterior wings 
fuscous, with paler strige. Antenne of the male ciliated. This conspicuous and 
singular species was discovered near Dublin by Mr. Barrett, who captured a fine’ 
specimen of the male; a female was subsequently taken by Mr. Birchall. I cannot 
identify it with any described European species, and have great pleasure in naming 
