THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S WEEKLY INTELLIGENCER. 
119 
son,” of the latter “ from Aube’s Mono- 
graph,” then will my assertion “ appear” 
in no wise “ remarkable,” while, on the 
other hand, it will become apparent that 
Mr. Waterhouse has attempted to support 
his performance by a sophism. 
Mr. Waterhouse denies that the reason 
adduced by me (the exclusive facilities he 
possesses) warrant the expectation that 
his Catalogue should afford a complete 
epitome of the Stephensian collection. 
On this point he is of course at perfect 
liberty to express his opinion ; to which, 
however, emanating from a “ deeply in- 
terested party,” no greater weight than it 
merits can be accorded. 
The number of specimens at present 
extant in the late Mr. Stephens’ cabinet 
of British Coleoptera may probably be 
estimated at twenty - seven thousand, 
which leaves a margin of nearly one 
thousand to meet the additions made by 
its possessor in the interval comprised 
between the winter of 1838, when his last 
census was taken, and his lamented de- 
cease, and which, considering the “ com- 
pressed’’ state of the collection at the 
epoch first named, and the almost total 
absorption of the last few years of his life 
by matters Lepidopterological, is perhaps 
more than sufficient. 
The number of species given 
by Mr. Stephens, in his 
‘Manual ’is 3462 
Deducting from this the Ste- 
phensian species already 
cleared up : — 
Geodephaga and Hydrade- 
phaga by Dr. Schaum and 
the Revds. Dawson and 
Clark 618 
Curculionidte by Mr. Walton 441 
Atomarite by Mr. Wollaston 21 
Trichopterygidae by Mr.Hali- 
day and the Rev. A. H. 
Matthews 15 1095 
There remain still to clear up . 2367 
On dividing 27,000 (the estimated total 
of specimens) by 3468 (the number of 
species enumerated by Mr. Stephens, in 
his ‘ Manual ’) we arrive at an approxi- 
mate average of eight representatives of 
each species, and on multiplying 2367 
(the number of species to be investigated) 
by eight, the result shows that the speci- 
mens amount to 18,936, and not to “ up- 
wards of twenty-six thousand,” as Mr. 
Waterhouse boldly asserts. But in re- 
presenting that I would impose upon 
him as a duty the examination of every 
individual throughout the collection, Mr. 
Waterhouse resorts to the old trick of 
conveying a false impression by ignoring 
the context of the passage he quotes, for, 
on referring to my article in the ‘ Annual,’ 
it will be seen that I have expressly 
stated that “I allude more particularly 
to the Brachelytra”; moreover, as I have 
before said, this is the only portion of his 
Catalogue to which Mr. Waterhouse can 
pretend to lay any claim of authorship, 
and therefore to which my remarks could 
apply. As regards the other groups I need 
only repeat that Mr. Wollaston, in his 
‘ Revision of the British Atomarise,’ has 
considered it desirable to render an ac- 
count of each specimen. 
The position of the Brachelytra, how- 
ever, is altogether an exceptional one : 
the unfortunate circumstance that Mr. 
Stephens abridged and modified the Rev. 
W. Kirby’s manuscript descriptions to 
suit the limits of his work, and the fact 
that in many instances he applied his 
(Mr. Kirby’s) names to very different in- 
sects, and the clashing of the Erichsonian 
names, rendered the adjustment of the 
nomenclature a task of considerable 
difficulty. If Mr. Waterhouse considers, 
as he appears to do, that by citing, for 
the types of Mr. Stephens’ published de- 
scriptions either the Stephensian or the 
Kirbyan collection, as happens best to 
suit his own penchant and purpose, and 
adopting the principle of selecting only 
one individual and furnishing no account 
