134 
THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S WEEKLY INTELLIGENCER, 
him to know whether I had examined 
only one specimen of each species in Mr. 
Stephens’ collection (for such was not the 
case), and I felt sure that, unless I lent 
him a hand by letting out what I really 
had done, he must commit himself, either 
by making some further assertions, or by 
sliding off from the main point in such 
a manner as to leave the matter pretty 
transparent. He has chosen the latter 
alternative, Mr. Janson (who is very clever 
at figures) proving, by great ingenuity, 
that I make “ a bold assertion ” in saying 
that Mr. Stephens states, in his ‘ Manual,’ 
that he has upwards of 26,000 specimens 
of Coleoptera ; firstly, by giving grounds 
for the belief that he must, at a subse- 
quent period, have had more than that 
number ; and, secondly, by dividing 
27,000 by 3468, &c., and by giving in a 
little multiplication, coming to the con- 
clusion that I have only 18,936 specimens 
to examine. All this is very satisfactory, 
though perhaps a little bewildering.* 
* For, after all, Stephens does state 
that his collection consisted of upwards 
of 26,000 specimens {i.e. 26,109), and 
Mr. Jauson’s remarks do refer to the col- 
lection of Coleoptera generally, though he 
now states that they were intended to 
refer to the Brachelytra only: no doubt 
in the first part of his paper, he says, he 
alludes “ more particularly ” to the Bra- 
chelytra, but that has reference to other 
statements. It is no fault of mine if 
Mr. J. expresses himself ambiguously. 
He talks of Stephens’ “ collection,” and 
says he was warranted in expecting a 
“ complete epitome ” of— what ? why, of 
the specimens, after the example of Mr. 
Wollaston, in his paper on Atomaria. 
That is what Mr. J. states! Then he 
makes Stephens’ collection come up to 
about 27,000 specimens, and works off 
ever so many thousands, because they 
(the specimens of Curculionida) and 
Carabidm, for example) were already 
But what I am most pleased to get at, 
through Mr. J.’s calculations, for the 
moment, is this, — that Mr. Stephens’ col- 
lection “ has an approximate average of 
eight specimens of each species.” Now, 
if I take my lens and look at a species 
(which is made up of eight specimens), 
how does Mr. J. know that I only saw 
one of the eight specimens? and, if I 
looked more carefully at one specimen 
than another, what right has he to assume 
that I had no reason for so doing, — that 
I took that specimen “ arbitrarily,” as he 
chooses to assert ? 
Now, with respect to my papers on 
Rhizophagus and Monotoma, read before 
the Entomological Society, and which 
seem to have disgusted Mr. J. so much 
that he would not give the readers of the 
‘ Annual ’ the benefit of my work. I have 
this to say with respect to the first of the 
two, that when it was read, up jumps 
Mr. Janson, and says he, “ You have 
appended no authors’ names.” I beg 
your pardon, Mr. Janson,” says I, “I 
have stated that the species of Rhizo- 
phagus were worked out from Erichsou’s 
descriptions.” Mr. J. may wriggle about 
as much as he pleases with regard to this 
question, but the “intelligent” readers 
will see through the dodge, and will feel 
quite satisfied that my stating “ that the 
species were worked out from Erichson’s 
done. But he knows they are not done ; 
a “ complete epitome ” of the specimens 
of those groups has never been furnished. 
What, then, are the calculations good 
for? Are they to mystify? Mr. Wol- 
laston, in his paper on Atomaria, could 
make observations upon the different 
specimens representing the species in 
Stephens’ collection, but everybody knows 
that the plan of a Catalogtie does not 
permit of such a proceeding. Why, then, 
does Mr. Janson pretend that he expected 
it? Every paragraph in the ‘Annual’ 
relating to me is equally disingenuous. 
