THE WEEKLY ENTOMOLOGIST. 
69 
and then we shall better he able to 
meet any adverse criticisms. 
2nd. I am glad to see communica- 
tions to its pages from my old friend 
J. C. Dale Esq. Who may be the 
“ facilfs princeps ” of Lepidopterists, 
it passes my Oxonian education to 
say, but who is the “ facile princeps ” 
of British Entomologists I have not a 
moment’s hesitation in pronouncing, 
— J. C. Dale Esq. himself ! Others, 
some few, may (or may not) know as 
much of Lepidoptera as he does, but 
when you come to a knowledge of all 
the orders, I believe “ we ne’er shall 
look upon his like again”! I was 
truly glad to look upon himself again 
some month or two ago in the Entom- 
ological Boom of the British Museum, 
for the first time after an interval of 
about twenty years, and congratulated 
him, as I could with truth, on his 
looking so much the same as ever. 
3rd. In my last communication, as 
printed, there are the following errata 
to be amended ; — for “ Doncaster,” 
read “ Harr, near Doncaster,” — for 
“between Barnsley and Shipton,” read 
“ Burnby and Shipton,” for“ Tat- 
ter down,” read “ Totterdown,” for 
“Lockington near Barnsley,” read 
“ Lockington near Beverley,” and for 
“ the line,” read, “ the Line.” 
I am aware that my writing is not 
the best in the world, — perhaps it is 
the worst, — so much so that I used to 
be quite proud of it. I remember, 
some thirty years ago, writing to a 
friend to say that I had got a Bing 
Dotteril and a Sandpiper, which he 
wrote me word that he interpreted to 
be a Bing-dog’s tail and a Saw-piper. 
In the present instance, however, 
others must be in fault, for I notice 
in other communications, ‘ disiderata ’ 
for “ desiderata,” “ Howarth for 
Haworth,” and “ Bujs” for “Bugs.” 
Bev. F. 0. Morris. Nunburnliolme 
Rectory , Hayton , near York. Sep- 
tember 30. 1862. 
lasiocampa Quercus. — If my good 
friend Mr. Allis will have the kind- 
ness to look again at my letter in 
the Entomologist of September 20. he 
will see that I nowhere state therein, 
as seems to be implied from the 
concluding paragraph of his letter, 
that he had spoken as if a new species 
must be inferred from the difference 
of the antennm of the specimen in 
question, from the ordinary type. 
He states that he has “now no recollec- 
tion of the circumstance.” I have ! 
a very distinct one ! And I always 
make it a rule to sleep too soundly to 
have dreamt it. I omitted to mention 
in my former communication, that 
the specimen in question was exhib- 
ited for me, before the Entomological 
Society, by Mr. Frederick Smith, of 
the British Museum. — Bbv. F. 0 
Morris, Nunburnliolme Reotory, Oct. 
4. 1862. 
Oeometra Brunneata. — The follow- 
ing corrections should be made in the 
last Entomologist p. 53. 6th. line, — * 
“ This moth ” should be the “ Photo- 
graph of this moth,” for if I had 
sent the moth the “Princeps ” would 
not have had the difficulty to decide. 
