382 JOURNAL OF SCIENCE. 
be identical with any of my three. None that I have described 
resemble L. capito, of which I have an accurate drawing. At the 
time the “ Manual of New Zealand Coleoptera” was written, I had 
not seen White’s Dorcws punctulatus, so I could not do more than give 
a copy of the original description. I now possess a specimen which 
shows that the species belongs to Lissotes. Dr. Sharp treats it as 
synonymous with Hope’s Doreus nove-zealandiv, but it may be proved 
that White’s name had priority. Of the remaining species I have 
examples of both sexes. . 
I need not refer to Figulus fissicollis. 
Respecting the “salidw is must be stated that Lacordaire, the 
distinguished author of “The Genera of the Coleoptera,” treated 
Mitophyllus as a synonym of Ceratognathus, it would therefore have 
looked like presumption on the part of a writer in a colony such as 
this to have taken any other course than the one I had adopted, viz. : 
placing the various allied species in the genus Ceratognathus. Dr. 
Sharp himself, when writing about his Ceratognathus dispar (Trans. Ent. 
Soc., 1882, Part L., p. 83), states—‘ This curious little Lucanid cannot 
properly be placed either in M:tophyllus, of which it has the legs, or 
in Ceratognathus, with which it agrees in some other points; but as 
there are, no doubt, other species to be discovered in New Zealand, 
and as the limits of the genera of Hsalides are difficult to determane, it 
had better remain at present in Ceratognathus.” I quite agree with 
Dr. Sharp there, but will just remark that if the study of these allied 
species proves to be such a difficult task to Dr. Sharp, who has access 
to the best Natural History collections and libraries in the world, 
what must it be to one like myself in an isolated country like New 
Zealand? He alsoseems to be, or affects to be, in doubt as to the 
genus of my Ceratognathus zealandicus! That must certainly appear 
to be a very strange circumstance indeed, considering that he received 
Jrom me, some eight years ago, the specimens I presented him with. 
It seems, therefore, that Dr. Sharp allows himself the privilege 
of placing species in doubtful positions, but that he is exceedingly 
hostile to such a practice on the part of others. 
In Dr. Sharp’s paper he regards the placing, by Prof. Hutton, 
of an insect that should have been the “ first species of one family as 
the last of another” and quite distinct one, as a slight error only, whilst 
my locating species in one of two closely allied genera is looked upon 
as an unpardonable mistake, leading to “future doubts and 
difficulties.” Moreover, Dr. Sharp omits to mention that I did not 
re-produce the slight error, but deliberately states that the Oxyonus 
referred to “has since been treated by writers on New Zealand ento- 
mology as a real Lucanid:” He also states, regarding Oxyomus, that 
it is, “like nearly all generic names a term of constantly shifting value,” 
a statement which any impartial person will at once reject as quite | 
Sion gist with his other statements respecting the synonyms I had 
created. 
‘The whole affair is easily explained, in fact I think most people 
will see that the real objects of his unfriendly criticisms are quite 
palpable. He is, perhaps, extremely anxious to secure correct nomen- 
clature, but at the same time he is evidently equally anxious to write 
in such a way as to prevent my descriptions being published, and to 
deter collectors from sending me any of their insects. At any rate, I 
regret my inability to come to any other conclusion. : 
