400 [October, 



brief summary of details given much more fully in my papers in the 

 New Zealand Transactions from 1878 to 1887 ; and in every instance 

 I give a reference to the original paper published. In writing my 

 book I had to remember a good many things besides full scientific 

 accuracy. The New Zealand Government is parsimonious to a degree, 

 and entirely unscientific ; the New Zealand settler is, as a rule, pig- 

 headed to a degree and equally unscientific ; and although I have not 

 the slightest reason to be dissatisfied with the general reception my 

 poor little work met with, yet I have been assailed not unfrequently 

 (by apparently fairly educated farmers and tree growers) for "putting 

 in so much Latin." Anticipating to some extent that this might be 

 the case, I reduced my work as far as possible to the simplest possible 

 form ; one unfortunate result of which is that scientific critics like 

 Mr. Morgan do not notice the references, which were all I could allow 

 myself. 



I would gladly forward copies of my papers to Mr. Morgan if I 

 had them ; but the last copy of most of them has been given away, 

 amongst others this very one of 1883. However, I rather think that 

 Mr. J. W. Douglas, of Lewisham, has them all. Anyhow, the New 

 Zealand Transactions are, I think, in the libraries of most of the 

 Scientific Societies in London. My paper of 1878 contains, I am well 

 aware, many egregious errors ; other papers have some too ; but I 

 believe all have been subsequently corrected. 



Next, Mr. Morgan, whilst quite correct in stating that no insect 

 of my group Semi-Goccidince has been reported from New Zealand, is 

 scarcely justified in proceeding to indicate that I have established 

 " another sub-family without examining the genera proposed to be 

 included." I do not know whence he derived this notion. As a matter 

 of fact, through the kindness of Dr. Signoret, I received, several years 

 ago (probably in 1880), a large collection of European and exotic 

 forms, some of great rarity and beauty. Amongst these were Kermes 

 vermilio, Planch., and Kermes Bauhinii, Planch. Later on (about 1882) 

 I obtained from South Australia an insect, undoubtedly a true Kermes, 

 but still awaiting from its discoverer, Mr. F. S. Crawford, a scientific 

 description. Still later, I obtained specimens of Asterolecanium 

 quercicola, Bouche. Of all these four I have examined, microscopically, 

 specimens both of larvae and adult ; I think, therefore, that my sub- 

 family was scarcely " established without examination of the genera 

 proposed to be included." 



But the foregoing matters are, after all, only personal. As regards 

 the question under discussion, I differ from Mr. Morgan as to the 



