The Zoologist— May, 1873. 3535 



"If this be a fair account of what I said, my meaning must have been 

 very ill-expressed. I refer to Proc. Ent. Soc. 1879, p. xxxiv., for what I did 

 say, aud will only add tlmt I lent Mr. Lewis the MS. of my paper to prepare 

 his reply. If the above be his understanding of what I have written, I can 

 scarcely feel surprised that he has misrepresented Dr. Barren 



"Mr. Lewis would have it appear that we are 'at difference not upon 

 lacts, but upon the importance attached to them.' The statements which 

 ■ Lt T ""''" tb^««-that 'the Atropos of 1861 is the Clothilla of 

 1865, that 'the insect which [in 1861] had a bare back, 15-jointed 

 antenna, and thickened thighs, has now [i. e. in 1865] leather-like 

 ^vlngIets, 27-jointed antennee, and legs not thickened,' and that 'the same 

 insect IS descibed by Dr. Hagen twice over, on two adjoining pages, with 

 opposite structural characters.' I say that these statements are erroneous ; 

 and If that ,s not a difference upon facts, I am at a loss to conceive 

 what IS. 



" But how doesMr. Lewis meet my challenge ? He says, ' Mr. Dunning 

 proves that the Linnean name pulsatoria was in 1865 transferred to an 

 insect of the genus Clothilla, while in 1861 it has represented an insect of 

 the genus Atropos. Granted at once ; and therefore the Atropos of 1861 

 ^s the Clothilla of 1 865. The very same " pulsatoria, Linne," was in 18G1 

 descnbed as an Atropos. and was in 1865 described as a Clothilla.' 

 Ml^ Lewis must entertain a very low estimate of the intelligence of ento- 

 nio legists If he thinks they will be convinced by such a verbal quibble. 

 Entomologists describe insects, and apply names to the insects; they do 

 not describe immes, and attach insects to the names. On two different 

 occasions Dr. Hagen applied the same name to two different insects havin. 

 opposite structural characters, on each occasion describing the two insects'; 

 and describing them as having opposite structural characters. And Mr 

 Lewis gravely contends that 'the same insect is described by Dr Haaen 

 twice over, on two adjoining pages, with opposite structural characters' - 

 Because insect A with one set of characters was at one time called 'pulsa- 

 toria Linne, and insect B with another set of characters is at another time 

 called pulsatoria, Linne^ therefore (says Mr. Lewis) the same insect is 

 described twice over with opposite structural characters! It has never 

 been my ot to encounter a more charming Non sequitur. And on this 

 and on this alone. Mr. Lewis has founded the charge of 'astonishing 

 chicanery of which Dr. Hagen is said to have been guilty. 



" Mr Lewis says that I have not answered the more important of his two 

 cases, that the criticism impugned by me was based on two instances, but 

 especially on that of Termes fatidicum, which is the climax to which Atropos 

 pulsatona was only a step. It is true I did not answer what Mr. Lewis 

 said about Termes fatidicum ; my object was to correct a specific mis- 

 statement, which related only to Atropos pulsatoria. On reference to the 



