The Zoologist— January, 1873. 3379 



and the Clotbilla of 1861 is the Clothilla of 1865 ; and instead of ' the same 

 insect being described by Dr. Hagen twice over, on two adjoining pages, with 

 opposite structural characters,' the two descriptions refer to two different 

 insects, whose opposite structural characters, and their consequent generic 

 as well as specific distinctness, were fully recognized by Dr. Hagen in 1861 

 as in 1865. 



" To this extent Mx-. Lewis's criticism is well founded. Dr. Hagen in 

 1861 did describe Clothilla as having the 'legs not thickened,' whilst in 

 1865 he says of Clothilla 'femora dilated,' just as he says of Atropos 

 'femora dilated.' Now the dilatation of the femora in Atropos is very 

 prominent ; in Clothilla it is so slight as scarcely to deserve the name ; 

 the thickening or absence of thickening of the thighs is a patent distinction 

 between the two genera; and I cannot but believe that there is an un- 

 fortunate omission of the negative in Ent. Mo. Mag. ii. ] 2i, and that the 

 description of Clothilla ought to have been ' femora not dilated,' in contra- 

 distinction to the ' femora dilated ' of Atropos. So far from its being the 

 fact, as suggested by Mr. Lewis, that the alteration from the description of 

 1861 was designedly made in order to admit the Linnean pulsatoria into 

 Clothilla, Dr. Hagen's view is that the insect with the dilated femora is not 

 the Linnean pulsatoria at all, but that the Linnean pulsatoria is Westwood's 

 studiosa, with the legs not thickened." 



After referring to another discrepancy between the descriptions of 1861 

 and 1865, not mentioned by Mr. Lewis — namely, that the " eyes yellowish" 

 of A. pulsatoria in 1861 become " eyes black" in the description of A. divina- 

 toria in 1865 — and pointing out that the " eyes yellowish " was a mistake, 

 perhaps taken (blindly) from the Linnean ocuUflavi, Mr. Dunning observed 

 that, though the synonymy was not given at length in Ent. Mo. Mag., 

 vol. ii., Dr. Hagen did say in so many words that A. divinatoria " is 

 A. pulsatoria of Westwood and authors " other than Linne, i. e. the A. pul- 

 satoria of Ent. Aim. 1 861, and that C. pulsatoria " is apparently the true 

 Termes pulsatorium of Linne, C. studiosa of Westwood," i. e. the C. studiosa 

 of Ent. Ann. 1861. Thus Dr. Hagen himself plainly pointed out which 

 insect he intended by each description, — pointed out, in short, that, notwith- 

 standing the change of the specific names, notwithstanding any variations in 

 the descriptions, the Atropos and Clothilla of 1865 were respectively the 

 Atropos and Clothilla of 1861. And if any doubt could still be felt on the 

 subject, it would be removed by a perusal of Dr. Hagen's later papers in 

 Stett. Ent. Zeit. 1866, pp. 188 and 233, and Verb, zool.-bot. Gesells. in 

 Wien, 1866, p. 201. 



The writer then proceeded to say that he was at a loss to conceive how 

 Mr. Lewis could have fallen into the mistake of supposing that the Atropos 

 of 1861 was the Clothilla of 1865. " The head and front of Dr. Hagen's 

 offending is, that he has substituted another name for pulsatoria, that 



