74 Miscellaneous. 
Castelnaui, Feld., of which there can be no doubt, it becomes neces- 
sary to use the earlier and Felderian name to this insect, though 
Butler still retains his own designation.” Here Mr. Distant inserts 
a footnote to this effect :—‘ This author has (Trans. Ent. Soe. ser. 3, 
vol. v. p. 471) argued that Felder’s work was antedated.” 
It is an exceedingly unfortunate fact that, although I have been 
assured positively on two different occasions (by men who knew. the 
truth) that Felder’s second volume was antedated, 1 have never 
been able to use their declarations as positive evidence—the first 
witness (an Austrian, though not an entomologist) having stated facts 
of which he did not know the importance, unaware that in so doing 
he was giving evidence against a personal friend; to give the name 
of this innocent informer would have been inexcusable. 
The second case is a harder one, since we have here to do with a 
well-known German lepidopterist, who, though also a friend of the 
Felders, ought to have set aside his personal feelings in the interest 
of truth and justice. This gentleman showed me the actual date of 
publication written by himself upon the cover of the part when re- 
ceived, and he assured me that it had been forwarded to him (accor- 
ding to instructions given to the publisher) as soon as it was ready. 
I have elsewhere pointed out that Hewitson gave instructions * 
that the part should be sent to him as soon as ready, but that he 
also never received it until the end of January 1867; nay, he was 
informed in the early part of that month that it was not ready. 
The explanation offered by the Felders was, I believe, that the 
coloured copies were not ready, but that the work could be obtained 
uncoloured. 
It is a singular fact that early in 1867, when I was commencing 
my ‘Catalogue of Satyrine in the British Museum,’ L had seen 
neither the second nor the third parts of the ‘ Reise der Novara ;’ aud 
not knowing in which volume the Satyrinz would be published, I 
wrote to the Felders informing them that unless I could see proofs 
or advance sheets it would be impossible for me to include their 
species in my Catalogue; and that, in answer to this intimaticn, 
they forwarded to me proof-sheets with plates on thin paper of the 
second and third parts. One would have supposed, had the second 
part been ready in an uncoloured condition, that the Felders would 
have wished to prove the fact by sending it in its bound form with 
thick plates. 
Now my reason for again calling attention to this vexed question 
is from a feeling that Mr. Distant (to whom I had asserted my 
knowledge of the antedating of Felder’s second part upon authority, 
to which, nevertheless, I was unwilling to refer) has hardly done me 
justice in allowing it to be supposed that I retained my own name, 
knowing that Felder’s had priority. As for what he says about my 
quoting Felder’s date subsequently, he must be aware that in so doing 
I had taken the date from the titlepage, either failing for the time 
* I see, however, that I did not mention his name, although he never 
asked me not to do so. 
