The Zoologist — February, 1873. 3417 



Mr. W. A. Lewis read a paper " On Dr. Hagen's treatment of Atropos 

 pulsatoria and Termes fatidicum," in answer to Mr. Dunning's remarks at 

 the previous meeting. 



Mr. Lewis explained tbat he had made no error of the kind Mr. Dunning 

 supposed, and tbat he and Mr. Dunning were at difference not upon facts, 

 but upon the importance attached to them; Mr. Dunning had written in 

 the language of apology only the same things which Mr. Lewis had written 

 in the language of fault-finding. 



Mr. Lewis said that the difference concerning Atropos pulsatoria was 

 entirely one of words, and continued : — 



"Mr. Dunning proves that the Linnean name pulsatoria was in 1865 

 transferred to an insect of the genus Clothilla, while in 1861 it had repre- 

 sented an insect of the genus Atropos. Granted at once ; and therefore 

 the Atropos of 1861 is the Clothilla of 1865, which is the proposition 

 Mr. Dunning disputes. The very same 'pulsatoria, Linne,' was in 1861 

 described as an Atropos and was in 1865 described as a Clothilla, and 

 Mr. Dunning establishes to his satisfaction that the later description is 

 correct. For the purposes of this argument, T will agree with him. What 

 if it is ? Tbat concession leaves the facts unaltered, and only makes the 

 indefinite definite in that it fixes the error as having been in 1861, whereas 

 before it lay between that date and 1865. It is the gist of my complaint 

 that Dr. Hagen taught me in 1861 the exact opposite of what he taught 

 me in 1865, though all the same materials were to his hand at the one 

 time as at the other. I am in my turn surprised that Mr. Dunning should 

 think this amounts to nothing. To make a Linnean species in 1861 the 

 type of one genus (without a note of doubt of any sort, kind, or description), 

 and in 1865 make it the type of another genus with opposite structural 

 characters, is a grave and not a trivial matter — more particularly when it is a 

 part of the author's own case that if he had not written his Synopsis before 

 he had ever studied the question, he must have found out he was wrong ! 

 Mr. Dunning would appear to have concluded that I was under some mis- 

 conception, from failing to understand that I consider worthy of reprobation 

 what he passes by as nothing." 



With regard to Stett. Ent. Zeit. 1866, and Verb, zool.-bot. Gesells. in 

 Wien, 1866, Mr. Lewis remarked that these references (with which as a fact 

 he was before acquainted) did not affect the question of Dr. Hagen's con- 

 sistency or inconsistency in 1861 and 1865 ; and added : " A perusal of the 

 passages cited gives rise to one obvious reflection. The more successful the 

 author is in showing that (when he paid attention to them) the facts were 

 clearly in one direction, the more blameworthy he appears to be for having 

 read them the other way before. The simple fact is thatin 1861 Dr. Hagen 

 published a Synopsis of the British Psocidse without an investigation of the 

 species. Tbat is the back-bone of Mr. Dunning's remarks, and is, I presume, 



