76 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



CLOSTERA ANACHORETA. 

 By Eev. Joseph Greene, M.A. 



I FEEL sure that you will allow me to reply (as shortly as 

 possible) to Dr. Knaggs' charges against me in the matter of 

 C. anachoreta. 



Firstly, I must express my regret at the half-hearted manner 

 in which he accepts my strong disclaimer of imputing to him any 

 share in what I thought then, and think still, was a dishonest 

 transaction. As Dr. Knaggs modestly expresses his belief that 

 few of the modern entomologists can have any knowledge of him, 

 then surely the explicit and unreserved statement of one who has 

 had that knowledge ought to be sufficient for this and any future 

 generation. Dr. Knaggs opens the campaign by asserting, in 

 somewhat queer language, that certain recorded facts omitted by 

 me are in themselves sufficient to " completely knock the bottom 

 out of his theory." I would ask him whether he clearly under- 

 stands my theory, or, as I prefer to call it, my argument ? He 

 conveniently avoids all mention of my summary under this head, 

 and I must therefore ask my readers to carefully peruse it, 

 commencing with the words, " I said," &c., p. 42. He then 

 proceeds to give the omissions on which he relies. 



No. 1. — " This beautiful larva," &c. I ask, what on earth has 

 it to say to my argument ? Are the italicized words intended to 

 convey the fact that, in confinement, tlie larva of C. anachoreta 

 will eat sallow when it cannot get poplar ? Possibly ; but as it is, 

 as I believe, universally admitted that its food, in a state of nature, 

 is poplar, the statement of Mr. Norman that he found one pupa 

 under willow bark (not sallow) either proves nothing, or, if it 

 proves anything, it is only to lend a certain amount of probability 

 to my supposition that he might possibly have mistaken the 

 species. Furtlier, what are we to gather from the words in small 

 capitals? Is it that Mr. Cooper, who "believes" that his larva 

 was feeding on sallow, was the first discoverer of the insect, and 

 not Dr. Knaggs ? Then has the whole entomological world 

 laboured under a false conviction for thirty-four years, since, in 

 1859, Dr. Knaggs announced the discovery of it by himself 

 (* Zoologist,' vol. xvii, p. 6738) ; also in the ' Transactions of 

 the Ent. Soc. of London' (vol. v., new series, p. 77). But, 

 whatever it may mean, how does it affect my argument ? But I 

 have not quite done with this omission. Having given the 

 quotation from the ' Zoologist,' he goes on to say, " The re- 

 mainder is omitted, because it is quite irrelevant to the question." 

 Here we are at direct issue. The words (" omitted " by Dr. 

 Knaggs) seem to me very relevant indeed, and are as follow : 

 *' The two localities given for the insects are certainly calculated 



