3536 The Zoologist— May, 1873. 



' Discussion,' it will be seen that Dr. Hagen's treatment of T. fatidicum was 

 a ' RIDICULOUS FARCE,' but his treatment of A. pulsatoria was ' astonishing 

 chicanerjr.' To me the word ' chicanery ' has an ugly sound ; it was that 

 word which offended my ear, and it was to the charge of chicanery that 

 I addressed myself And the charge then made as to A. pulsatoria having 

 been (as I submit) refuted, Mr. Lewis now brings T. fatidicum to the front, 

 and makes a lot of fresh charges based on Dr. Hagen's treatment of this 

 insect, or if Mr. Lewis prefers it ' this supposed insect.' It is as if my 

 learned friend were prosecuting a man (say) for bigamy, and after the 

 defence has been heard, the prosecutor replies by attempting to show that 

 the accused has at all events committed forgery ! As before, I decline to 

 discuss the ' farce,' preferring to attend to one thing at a time. 



"Mr. Lewis goes on to say, 'It is the gist of my complaint that 

 Dr. Hagen taught me in 1861 the e.xact opposite of what he taught me ia 

 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.' Mr. Lewis's surprise is uncalled for; Mr. Dunning 

 has neither said that this amounts to nothing, nor does he think so. The 

 ground now alleged may or may not be a good ground of complaint against 

 Dr. Hagen ; but it is quite a different complaint from that wliich was made 

 in the ' Discussion,' p. 54. The original objection was that the change of 

 name ought not to have been made at all ; the objection now is that 

 Dr. Hagen ought to have known in 1861 the facts which induced him to 

 make the change in 1865. 'The simple fact is that in 1861 Dr. Hagen 

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

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

 sume, the thing he has come forward to justify.' Mr. Lewis presumes too 

 much ; I have not attempted to justify what Dr. Hagen actually did, much 

 less have I come forward to justify what Mr. Lewis, without any personal 

 knowledge of the circumstances, asserts to be ' the simple fact,' but which 

 of my own knowledge I say is not a fact. If Mr. Lewis's simple fact is the 

 back-bone of my remarks, the back-bone was very carefully extracted, and 

 my remarks as delivered were invertebrate. Upon what authority, or 

 supposed authority, it is stated that Dr. Hagen published his Synopsis of 

 1861 without an investigation of the species, I cannot conjecture. But if 

 there be any question on this point, it is fortunate that there are still living 

 several entomologists who can testify to the fact of the investigation having 

 been made. In truth. Dr. Hagen came over to this country for the very 

 purpose of studying the British species. 



" That subsequent investigation has proved the existence of errors in the 

 Synopsis of 1861 is perfectly true. But faulty as it was, it did good service 

 in its day ; and no one has more readily admitted its shortcomings and 

 corrected its errors than Dr. Hagen himself To my mind, readiness to 



