8976 Insects. 
his taking credit in 1857 for having been one of the earliest to predict that it would 
prove to be a Lepidepteron. This is, however, not more extraordinary than that the 
same writer should at one time have maintained the genus Psyche to be neuropterous.” 
—Edwin Brown, in ‘ Natural History of Tutbury, p. 400. Now this paragraph, 
which the reader will see is penned in rather an adverse and depreciatory spirit, is 
very useful to me as reminding readers that, in common with the great European 
entomologists, I entertain doubts as to the lepidopterous nature of Acentria: doubts 
neither feigned when I expressed them, nor dissipated now that Mr. Brown has pub- 
lished tn ewtenso his valuable observations on the subject (Zool. 8917); but also that 
thirty-three years ago I suggested the possibility of uniting the Psychide with the 
Phryganide through Taleporiaand Tinodes. As to calling Tinodes neuropterous, we 
all used to do so formerly, and it is only the idea of annexing Psyche and Taleporia to 
Tinodes, and the other Phryganide that was new. Copernicus was not only ridiculed 
but imprisoned for asserting that the earth travelled round the sun; he contented 
himself with saying that it was true notwithstanding; he knew that neither ridicule 
nor imprisonment could turn aside the course of Nature ; that if it were the appointed 
duty of our globe to move in the course he suggested, the movement would con- 
tinue whether the authorities and the wits approved of it or not ; and thus it will prove 
with all novel suggestions: they will be ridiculed for a time, but if true adopted here- 
after. I may also remark that Mr. Brown will see, on a careful reperusal of the 
passage in question, that the word “ maintained” is somewhat inappropriate. I only 
“suggested” that “‘Tinodes or Psyche be placed on the circumference of the circle 
containing the Phryganide;” and I go on to say, ‘ supposing Psyche to be the ap- 
proaching genus to Lepidoptera.’ I am sure that it will be known to all entomolo- 
gists that I have not the merit of placing the Phryganide among the Neuroptera; 
I found them so placed by Linneus and Latreille, and all the greater entomologists, 
and I only let them alone. 
Before concluding, I must say that I hail with nnmixed satisfaction every attempt 
to reopen the discussion on the affinities of Acentropus: and I rejoice that Mr. Brown 
can believe himself to have settled so difficult a question; at the same time I cannot 
help recommending to him a much more careful examination of the larva and pupa, 
for if the figure drawn by himself of the former be correct, in appearing to have eleven 
spiracles and six pairs of claspers, it is utterly impossible that such a larva should pro- 
duce a lepidopterous imago ; and again, if the figures of the pupe approach to correct- 
ness, the insect can have no affinity to Zeuzera and Hepialus, near which he proposes 
to place it: all the Xylophagi are distinguishable in their pupa state by the singular 
form and by the double series of hooks surrounding every segment. — Edward 
Newman. 
Manual of British Trichoptera.— Notes on British Trichoptera,” by Mr. 
M‘Lacblan, is a paper full of valuable information, particularly that portion which 
treats of the interesting habits of this family. I can fully appreciate the regret ex- 
pressed by the author that so few Entomologists pay any attention to the Phryganide ; 
were it otherwise, many interesting discoveries would no doubt be made. Let us hail, 
then, with marked approbation, the announcement of the intention of the author to 
commence at once a Manual of the British Phryganide; and let us hope that the 
production of this work will prove the means of bringing into the same field a number 
of labourers as energetic and accomplished as the author of the promised Manual.— 
President's Anniversary Address to Entomological Society, January 25, 1864. 
