THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S WEEKLY INTELLIGENCER. 
149 
I will not now allude to changes in 
generic and specific nomenclature and 
arrangement, though I confess to sharing 
the opinion of Berlin that the advantage 
is on the side of Baerensprung, par- 
ticularly when he shall have completed 
his revision of the Biceliuli. A few spe- 
cies which should obviously be united 
may be noticed briefly. Eurygaster ob- 
liquus, Leach, sinks under hottenlotlus, 
Fab.; Anlhocoris exilis, Fall., belongs 
to the genus Myrmedobia, and probably 
to the species culeoptrala (this is an in- 
teresting species inhabiting ants’ nests). 
Is Leptomerocoris chorizans , Fab., meant 
for chlorizans, Fall.? L. nassatus, Fab. 
includes icterocephalus, Hbn. L.mutabi- 
Lis is the subject of the mistake at D. pi- 
I.nsus. Orlhosleira cassidea, Fall., includes 
brunnea, Germ., and O.obscura, H.-Schf. 
is pusilla, Fall., and the only reason for 
including macrophthalma, Fieb., is from 
“ pusilla ? Fab.” of the Stettin Catalogue. 
Saida marginalis, “Fal.,” should be 
“ Ahr.,” because synonymous with Cocksi 
of Curtis (misprinted Corlliisi in Baeren- 
sprung), and now is called geminata, 
Cost. ; also S. pulchella is considered 
distinct. Velia rivulorum is a southern 
species, and no doubt Currens is in- 
tended. Corixa uffinis, Leach, and 
dorsalis , Leach, are omitted, and Noto- 
necla maculala , Fab., is referred to 
N. glauca , L. 
I have been very brief, to save space, 
but shall be much pleased to hear from 
any Hemiplerist who will spare a few 
lines. Of the Lists I brought only a 
few, as also of Dr. Schaum’s Coleoptera, 
price Is. 6d., post free. 
W. D. Crotch. 
Uphill House, Weston-super Mare; 
January 25, 186L. 
DIANTHCECIA CAPSOPHILA. 
To the Editor of the ‘ Intelligencer.' 
Sir, — Will you kindly allow me a 
corner just to say that Mr. C. S. Greg- 
son’s charge (Int. p. 133) that I mis- 
quoted the ‘ Liverpool Mercury,’ for the 
purpose of making it appear that his 
paper, read before the Historic Society, 
was on Capsophila, well knowing the 
contrary, is as preposterous as it is false. 
The omission of the letter s appears to 
be merely an error of the printer’s ; the 
word stands “ insects ” in the original 
draft now before me, but it is quite im- 
material, as the paragraph, with or with- 
out it, can only be understood in the 
sense I applied it— viz., as referring to 
Capsophila. 
As to the charge of wilful perversion 
— let it pass for what it is worth. 
I do not observe anything else in 
Mr. Gregson’s long-winded communica- 
tion which needs a reply from me ; he is 
perfectly welcome to abuse me if it 
pleases him. Lord Brougham tells that 
he was once counsel for the defendant in 
a certain case, and that his brief merely 
contained the following words, — “No 
case — abuse plaintiff’s attorney.” 
Yours, &c., 
Edwin Biechall. 
Birkenhead, Jan. 28. 
mr. darwin’s theory. 
To the Editor of the ‘ Intelligencer.' 
Sir, — It seems to me that the theory 
of Mr. Darwin has received but a scant 
measure of fair play in your pages; not 
only are all the notices that have ap- 
peared opposed to it,— this would excite 
