THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S WEEKLY INTELLIGENCER. 
133 
This appears to have been quite over- 
looked by Dr. Hagen, though the fact 
was mentioned by Mr. Curtis years since, 
at a meeting of the Entomological Society, 
as far as regards Acentropus. 
I think that, after the characters above 
cited are duly considered, no one can 
possibly thiuk of uniting Chimarra with 
Acentropus. 
With due deference to Mr. Westwood 
and others, I think that in our present 
state of knowledge as regards the pre- 
paratory states of Acentropus , there are 
no more urgent reasons for its location 
with the Lepidoptera than with the Tri- 
choptera; even supposing that the visible 
palpi in the male are labial, why should 
there not be a group of Triehoptera with 
preponderating labial palpi. The ano- 
malous form of the palpi in the females 
is as contrary to rule in the one as in the 
other, and the extremity of the abdomen 
is adorned with quite Trichopteriform 
anal appendages, and the want of tibial 
spurs is as much at variance with the 
rule in Lepidoptera as in Triehoptera. 
In short, until other more decisive cha- 
racters are discovered, I think that we 
can do no harm in placing it among the 
Triehoptera, division Heleropalpi, and 
near Sericoslomiclce. 
I must apologize for the length of 
these notes. I had intended that they 
should appear in another form, but as at 
present there seems no chance of be- 
coming fully acquainted with the habits 
of the larva, &c., of Acentropus, I think 
it best to circulate them by the medium 
of the ‘ Intelligencer,’ hoping that some 
one will pay particular attention to the 
earlier states in the coming season, and 
follow up the clue already obtained by 
Mr. Brown, of Burton-on-Trent. 
R. M‘Lachi.an. 
Forest Hill, Jan. 19, 1861. 
DIANTHCECIA CAPSOPHILA. 
A Reply to Mr. Bikchall’s Remarks 
(Int. No. 222, p. 109). 
“ He that filches from me my good name, 
Robs me of that which not enriches him, 
And makes me poor indeed.” 
To the Editor of the 1 Intelligencer .* 
Sir, — Thus wrote our greatest moral- 
ist, when pseudo-scientific entomologists 
were uot. How some of the men of the 
present day write may be seen at p. 109 
of the ‘ Intelligencer,’ where Mr. Bircliall, 
professing to quote from the ‘ Liverpool 
Mercury’ of December 2 1st, says — 
“ Mr. C. S. Gregson exhibited three 
cases of Coleoptera from his collection, 
illustrative of a paper, which he read, on 
the Geodephaga of the district around 
Liverpool. 
“ He also exhibited Dianthcecia Cap- 
sophila, Gn., a species new to England; 
the specimens were captured on the coast 
of Cumberland.” 
When he ought to have said, “The spe- 
cimens were captured by J. T. Tiltman, 
Esq., and W. Nicholson, Esq., of White- 
haven, on the coast of Cumberland.” 
But by suppressing the names of the 
gentlemen, which appeared in the ‘ Mer- 
cury,’ as having captured them, he wil- 
fully places me in the unenviable position 
of having appropriated to myself the 
honour of the capture, when he knew 
well, as one of his paragraphs shows, how 
scrupulous I am that every man has the 
full honours he wins. 
In the next quotation he, by the omis- 
sion of one little letter (s), takes away its 
whole meaning, and makes it appear to 
apply to D. Capsophila, when he knew 
full well that by leaving the word as it 
appeared in the ‘Mercury’ — “insects,” 
not “ insect,” as he twice puts it — that it 
