THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



[May, 



Mr. Briggs asks how many specimens were experimented upon. 

 I admit this should have been stated, but I never expected that any 

 one would for a moment imagine that I, or any one else, would base 

 their arguments on the examination of single specimens. At first, I 

 tried many specimens, a dozen or eighteen, and found in every case 

 absolutely no difference in the structure of the genital organs ; this 

 being so, I contented myself afterwards with two or three specimens, 

 as to take more would be a useless waste of the time at my disposal. 

 As regards Exulans, I had a plentiful supply to experiment upon, 

 which I certainly did not spare. I have other ideas of an entomologist 

 than the mere massing of a cabinet series, as my collection will testfy, 

 by the hundreds of specimens minus their bodies. 



Mr. Brigg's states the whole of our Zygcenida are not only thoroughly 

 well known in all their stages, but are fully described and figured by 

 Continental authors, &c, this being so, how is it Mr. Briggs can take 

 part in a controversy continued for seven months, on " What is our 

 New Forest Meliloti? " if he could have instantly settled it, by his 

 authors of lasting renown, if they were as infallible as he would make 

 out. In Vol. VIII, Y.N., p. 224, Mr. Sydney Webb considers Meliloti 

 to be a form of Trifolii. Here is an entomologist who evidently does 

 not consider these authors indisputable. In Vol. IX, Y.N., p. .54, 

 Mr. Tugwell states his belief, the four species are forms of one species. 

 Another entomologist who does not blindly follow these authors. In 

 Vol. IX, Y.N., p. 82, Mr. Robson scarcely thinks Trifolii and Meliloti to 

 be distinct. Still, a third entomologist who considers he has a right 

 to an opinion of his own. In Vol. IX, Y.N., p. 82, Mr. Briggs gives the 

 history of breeding Meliloti and says, " New Forest Meliloti produced 

 unmistakeable Trifolii" and " Meliloti are but a degenerate form of 

 Trifolii" and in the present volume, p. 72, states, that it, viz. : our New 

 Forest Meliloti, has been described and figured by Hubner, Esper, and 

 Ochsenheimer, as well as our own writers. Surely Mr. Briggs sees 

 that there are some statements made by these authors of lasting 

 renown, which he cannot reconcile with his own experience. If Mr. 

 Briggs settled the question 13 years ago that Meliloti was Trifolii, how 

 is it that the name has not been altered in our lists and collections ? 



In reply to Mr. Jenner Weir, I have seen most of the works referred 

 to. In my paper I do not state that nothing has been done with the 

 genital organs of the lepidoptera, but that, as far as I know, nothing 

 has been done in the way I suggest ; I am sure he will at once see the 

 difference between a minute microscopic examination and a superficial 

 view with a simple lens. 



