1889] 



THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 127 



In accepting your valuable donation, the Trustees directed me to convey 

 to you the expression of their special thanks for your liberality, which has 

 enabled them to make a very important addition to the National collection 

 of British Lepidoptera. 



I have the honour to be, Sir, 



Your obedient Servant, 



W. H. Flower. 



R. Newbury, Esq. 



We have only to express our hope that the collection, being so 

 important for the reasons given above, will be kept intact, and not 

 mixed with other specimens. The cabinet being presented along 

 with the contents makes this very easy of accomplishment. 



We are sure the best thanks of every lepidopterist will be heartily 

 given to Mr. Newbury for thus placing so important and typical a 

 collection where it will be accessible to every one. 



An account of many of the insects contained in the collection will 

 be found in the seventh volume of the Young Naturalist. 



Anal Appendages. 



By C. A. BRIGGS. 



It is satisfactory to find that Mr. Pierce examined a sufficient 

 numbers of specimens of each species to ascertain beyond doubt, 

 that there is no variation in the appearance of the anal appendages 

 of each species, so far as typical specimens are concerned. 



He seems, however, to have so utterly mistaken two of my queries 

 that he has practically replied to questions I never put. 



I never asked whether pairing could alter actual structure, such, 

 for instance, as the number of hooks on the organ, but only whether 

 it could alter appearance. Considering how largely his paper dealt with 

 appearance, and that in his descriptions he uses such words as 

 "shorter," "stouter," "slender," "produced beyond the flap," &c, 

 I do not see that my question was so unnecessary. To most of us the 

 whole matter is novel, and it is certainly desirable to have it explained 

 clearly, and it might well have been that actual use might have 

 developed or altered the appearance of these organs. 



Then again, as to his remarks on " age." I am sorry to have to 

 explain to him that I was not referring to the duration of the imago, 

 but to the time that had elapsed since the specimen was alive. The 

 expressions, "old specimens," "the age of a specimen," &c, are so 



