112 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



to the question. It should run thus : — " The remainder is omitted 

 because it is quite irrelevant to the question, and moreover would 

 require the publication of explanatory notes from the 'Zoologist' 

 and ' Intelligencer ' of the period, thereby occupying space quite 

 unnecessarily." 



Would not the vast majority of people have taken the above 

 as a warning to be cautious, — to find out what those explanatory 

 notes meant, which were to be found within the pages of the 

 ' Zoologist ' of the period, before rushing into print with an im- 

 perfectly quoted extract from that omission ? 



Mr. Greene apparently took no heed of my warning ; had he 

 done so, he would certainly have modified his last paper very 

 considerably, or possibly have left it unwritten, thereby saving 

 himself humiliation, and me an unpleasant task. But what did he 

 do ? He evidently jumped to the conclusion that I withheld the 

 matter in question because it told against me, and accordingly he 

 blindly reproduced it regardless of consequences. 



I will tell him what his rash act has done for him : — 1. It has 

 revealed the spirit in which he is carrying on this controversy, by 

 showing the eagerness with which he seized upon a statement 

 which he thought was likely to injure my reputation. 2. It has 

 dragged before the public the apology of a gentleman who has 

 passed away from us, and which was therefore sealed to me. 

 3. It has provided me with the important evidence of the late 

 Mr. Henry Doubleday, which I could not otherwise have used. 

 And all for what ? for the passing gratification of raking up 

 against his " friend and correspondent " an old, long-forgiven, 

 long-forgotten, charge, which was contradicted, apologised for, 

 and withdrawn more than thirty years ago. 



This is the item which he considers "very relevant indeed": 

 " The two localities given for the insect are certainly calculated 

 (if not designed) to lead our assiduous larva-hunters astray ; in 

 the ' neighbourhood of London ' is literally untrue ; ' home 

 counties ' is within the verge of truth, but conveys no idea what- 

 ever of the exact truth. As I have been favoured with a know- 

 ledge of the spot under the seal of secrecy, I can say no more on 

 the subject" (Zool. 7682). What then ! The first locality was 

 given by a writer in the ' Annual,' the second was mine, the third 

 was Mr. Cooper's. 



In the early part of the year preceding the appearance of the 

 above extract, Mr. Greene, if he had taken the trouble to look, 

 would have found the following note from me: Zool. 6904 (1860). 

 " ' Home counties' is the only locality I have ever publicly given 

 for C. anachorsta, and the only one for which I will be respon- 

 sible. The statement in the 'Annual,' that I took it in the 

 neighbourhood of London, was published without my knowledge 

 or sanction." And if he had made a further search, he would 

 have found, Zool. 7717 (1861), the apology for having made the 



