78 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



hitherto known ai-e contained in the British Maseum collection, 

 and were obtained by the late Dr. Leach from the collection of 

 Mr. Spratt; so many years having elapsed without the occurrence 

 of other specimens, its claim to rank as a British insect has been 

 almost universally disputed, and the present capture may, there- 

 fore, be looked upon as a re- discovery." Thus it will be seen 

 that, so far as the " past " is concerned, up to 1859, the only claim 

 that anachoreta had to be considered a British species consisted 

 in the fact that in the British Museum were two specimens cap- 

 tured, " many years " before, by no one knows whom, or when, or 

 where. We come then to the " present," by which I mean the 

 period of Dr. Knaggs' discovery. Suddenly, after the lapse of 

 " so many years," he announces the discovery of the famous 

 eleven larv^. It is unnecessary to dwell further here upon the 

 " present " history, as it will be found in full in my paper, by those 

 who care to read it. Then as to its ** future," i. e., from 1864 up 

 to date. In broad terms I assert that it has disappeared. As to the 

 two cases mentioned by Messrs. Norman and Harbour, I attach no 

 value to them ; and with regard in particular to that of Mr. Norman 

 (of whom I may say " that I have not the pleasure of knowing him 

 either personally or by correspondence, or even by sight ") I would 

 observe only, that when so experienced a dealer as the late Mr. 

 Weaver, and a still more experienced and well-known amateur 

 naturalist actuall}^ mistook a specimen of G. reclusa for C. anacho- 

 reta, it was not an unfair suggestion that Mr. Norman might also 

 have been in error as to the species he bred from his solitary pupa. 

 But I cheerfully give Dr. Knaggs the benefit of these two, and a 

 dozen more isolated cases, if he can produce them. My point is 

 in no way appreciably affected thereby. I am aware that, during 

 recent 3'ears, occasional records have been given of breeding the 

 insect, but they have generally been accompanied by " from 

 foreign ova." 



Finally, Dr. Knaggs concludes his remarks with a somewhat 

 peremptory statement that it must be *' obvious," from the 

 omissions cited, that my inferences have been drawn from 

 " wrong premisses." I will be equally explicit, and say that the 

 " omissions " on which he relies have no bearing whatever on the 

 subject ; and that now, after ten more years' experience, I am 

 more than ever convinced that C. anachoreta is not an indigenous 

 British species, nor is that conviction likely to be altered in 

 these days of unblushing importation. 



Eostrevor, Clifton, Bristol. 



PS. — Under the " first omission," Dr. Knaggs writes, " There 

 is no recorded evidence of his (Mr. Cooper's) having collected 

 there in 1859 ; . . . but I am open to correction." Then, in an 

 N.B., " Mr. Cooper has since given his locality as Saltwood, an 



