516 Mr. G. Newpovt on a new genus of Parasitic Insects. 



equally applies to Mr. Westwood's genus Hemiptarsenus, to which 

 he has assigned this as a generic character of the male. To be 

 sure, in the case of Melittohia, we have the " strikingly opposite 

 analogy " in addition, but, unfortunately, this refers to " Stylops, 

 Melo'e and Sitaris" and even as regards them it is not explained 

 in what this " strikingly opposite analogy '^ consists. Yet on these 

 shallow pretensions Mr. Westwood questioned the accuracy of my 

 statements, and now asserts that his insect and mine are iden- 

 tical, attempts to claim priority of description, and does not 

 hesitate to declare in print, that "the facts (!) and charac- 

 ters" (?) he had given were "sufficient to identify the insect, 

 and distinguish it from every known species of the family to 

 which it belongs (!)." But not only does Mr. Westwood assert this 

 sufficiency on his part, and the identity of the two insects, but dis- 

 courteously affirms that my description of Anthophorabia is "per- 

 fectly unintelligible, '^ and then, for some, no doubt, most cogent 

 reasons best known to him, he heads his description published on 

 the 12th of May as follows: " Melittobia, Westw. 1847; Anthopho- 

 rabia, Newp. 1849." Now in this very description he has given the 

 same number of characters for his insect, and has followed the 

 exact order of notification of parts which I have followed in mine, 

 published on the 24th of March ; and while he modestly asserts 

 that six out of the nine characters which I have given are erro- 

 neous, he has copied, in whole or in part, the very words I have 

 employed, and the very order in which I have employed them in 

 five out of these nine proscribed unintelligible characters ! Is it 

 probable that this could have been accidental on the part of one 

 who is ever so especially alive to his own advantage ? Will the 

 reader believe that any one who has any regard for his own credit 

 or for public opinion, could be capable of such an attempt at im- 

 position on his patience and his judgement ? Yet such are the 

 facts, as a comparison of Mr. Westwood's description with mine 

 in the ^Gardeners' Chronicle,' pages 295 and 188, will prove. 



Whether the characters given for Anthophorabia are sufficient 

 to identify the insect or not, I leave entirely to the decision of 

 others. When these are compared with those now published of 

 Melittobia, the asserted identity of the two insects appears to be 

 extremely doubtful: thus the male Anthophorabia has ocelli 

 instead of compound eyes; Melittobia is described as having 

 neither compound eyes nor ocelli : Anthophorabia has the middle 

 portion of the antenna " large and globose ;" Melittobia has the 

 corresponding portion of this organ " very small and subannu- 

 lose." 



But assuming for an instant, what Mr. Westwood is pleased 

 to assert as a positive fact, that the two are identical, and pre- 

 suming that his description corrects errors in detail in mine, 



