82 THE YOUNG 



thought it best, at the risk of being 

 considered presumptious, to investigate 

 the matter and lay the result before our 

 readers. Mr. Gregson has always 

 assured us that his remarks were direct- 

 ed to certain individuals in his own 

 neighbourhood, and not to the southern 

 captures at all. Unfortunately, however, 

 the name of the entomologist who took 

 the specimen, to which reference will be 

 made shortly, was Harbour, and Mr. 

 Gregson made use in his letter of the 

 expression *'I harbour the opinion," &c. 

 Mr. Harbour, or Mr. Tugwell for him, 

 put the cap on, and hence the mutual 

 recrimination which we so much deplore. 

 Now to the history of the matter. We 

 would say that we have read all the 

 correspondence — no short one, — seen 

 the specimens, and made every en- 

 quiry that seemed necessary to direct 

 us to a correct conclusion. 



In 1878 Mr. Tugwell, who has been 

 known for over a quarter of a century 

 as one of our best working entomologists, 

 and who has turned up many rarities 

 in some numbers in years gone by, was 

 collecting Nola aentonalis at Deal, where 

 he made the acquaintance of Mr. Har- 

 bour, Mr. Harbour is a working man, 

 not much known outside his own neigh- 

 bourhood, but whom we would from his 

 correspondence judge to be a rather 

 positive and very persevering man. He 

 makes no pretence of being what would 

 be called a good entomologist so far as 

 the differentiation of closely allied 

 species goes, and he took the opportunity 

 of Mr. Tugwell being at Deal to get 

 him to look over his collection and 



NATURALIST. 



correct any errors he might have made. 

 Among his specimens of E. angularia 

 Mr. Tugwell detected a female Autum- 

 naria, which is before us as we write. 

 It is exactly as Mr. Tugwell describes 

 it in the December number of the 

 Entomologist: "worn, tips of wing 

 broken, but still unmistakably Autum- 

 naria.^' One of Harbour's males seen 

 by Mr. Tugwell at the same time is 

 also before us. Now that we know all 

 about it we wonder that Mr. T. did not 

 feel equally sure about it, for though it 

 only expands \\ inches, it has all the 

 peculiarities of Autumnaria well defined, 

 nevertheless, it was passed over an 

 probably only a strongly marked Angu- 

 laria. In 1880, Mr, Tugwell again at 

 Deal, in looking through Harbour's 

 breeding cages saw some Thorn" 

 larvae he did not know. Tiliaria were 

 emerging in the cage, and Harbour said 

 these were larvae of Angularia. No 

 doubt remembering the well-marked 

 specimen he had seen two years before, 

 Mr. Tugwell expressed a desire to reai 

 this species, which he had not done 

 before. Mr. Harbour, therefore, three 

 months later, sent him thirty-six eggs 

 which were entered as Angularia in hi: 

 note book. . These were depositee 

 by a female reared from the larvae seei 

 in Mr. Harbour's cage. No suspicioi 

 of them being anything else was in th( 

 mind of anyone. They hatched ii 

 April and May, 1881, and when Mr 

 Tugwell went to Deal again in the fol 

 lowing June he thought they were fu] 

 fed. They were left with other commo 

 larvae in care of Mr. Tugwell's son, whc 



