i8 94 .1 THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 



101 



Curtis, and then Wocke (than anyone more ignorant of British species 

 outside this country, it is more difficult to imagine), probably misled by 

 Wood, who had erroneously figured ochrodactyla as migadactyla, imme- 

 diately concluded that Haworth's migadactyla referred to ochrodactyla 

 also, and put it so in the Catalogue. But this was impossible, since 

 Haworth had already distinguished ochrodactyla from migadactyla. This 

 error led me to investigate the matter, which is clear enough until 

 Haworth is reached. Although I have been studying Continental 

 " plumes " for many years, I do not pose as a critic of Continental 

 species. Therefore, I said, " I have left entirely out of account the 

 Fabrician migadactyla, as there may be a white Continental (not British) 

 species to which the description might apply, but that does not in- 

 fluence Haworth's use of the name for our species." This surely is a 

 fair statement of facts, as far back as I can follow the subject. Now, 

 if Mr. Dale has any knowledge of Fabricius (personally or from books) 

 and can become a critic behind that point where I leave off, I shall be 

 pleased to say that migadactyla, Haw. is migadactyla, Fab. On the face 

 of the description alone, I think it very probable, but (and this is the 

 factor which deterred me from feeling certain that this was so) it is 

 quite possible for a short diagnosis to comprise two or even more 

 species, and be an equally good (or bad) description of either, or each, 

 and yet from incompleteness, or some other factor, the differentiation 

 of any one of the species may be impossible, and this I feel may be the 

 case with Fabricius' description. When Haworth copies a previous 

 description and extends its application it appears to me reasonable to 

 suppose that he becomes responsible for its usage, so far as he accepts 

 it, for his own species, i.e., the one before him, and of which he is 

 writing, and to assume otherwise would lead to endless trouble and 

 difficulty. I may state that I myself gave Mr. Dale the clue on which 

 he has based his paragraph, vide ante, p. 8, where I write " Fab." other- 

 wise I cannot see that Mr. Dale would have referred to the matter. 

 One other point I would like to refer to. Mr. Dale writes : — " Moreover, 

 he did not name and describe a species as migadactylns, but merely copied 

 Fabricius." This is true, as far as it goes, but Haworth did describe 

 a species under migadactyla, first quoting Fabricius' diagnosis, and then 

 further describing in his own words its relations to allied species, habitat, 

 &c, which Fabricius apparently did not know ; and then Mr. Dale goes 

 on to say, " Moreover, he (Haworth) did not possess spilodactylus , Curt." 

 Now, Mr. Dale must be in serious error here, but if he really means 

 what he writes, I must ask him in what part of the Shades he discusses 

 with the spirit of Mr. Haworth what the latter had in his collection at 

 the beginning of the century. When a writer lately suggested that the 

 shades of departed entomologists might still pursue their little fly- 

 catching in the regions across the Styx, little I knew that Mr. Dale 



