THE SUBSTITUTE, 
55 
minute tulievcles; the body is ter- 
minated by a small fleshy lobe or 
appendage, beneath which is a 
fleshy proleg or wart. The insect 
has a very strong vermicular mo- 
tion, contracting segment after 
segment, considerably resembling 
in this respect the incipient pupa 
of some Hi/menopiera. It twists 
the extremity of its body about in 
various directions, especially up- 
wards, with considerable energy.” 
Mr. Westwood then proceeds to 
describe the exotic species, and 
mirabile diclu, upsets two already 
published names on rather singu- 
lar grounds. Thus the Oiketicus 
elongalus, Saunders, Trans. Eiit. 
Soc. 4.3, becomes the O. Saun- 
dersii, Westwood. 
“ Considering it advisable to 
maintain for these curious insects 
the systems of specific names com- 
menced by the Rev. L. Guilding, 
I have altered that proposed for 
the present species by its first 
describer, it being, moreover, in- 
appropriate as applicable to other 
species agreeing with the present 
in .structure.” 
Surely there is but one step 
from the sublime to the ridicu- 
lous. The opening paragraph of 
tlie paper represents the sublime, 
the sudden jump to an uniform 
termination in ii (our readers will 
easily think of a familiar expres- 
sion that rhymes therewith), and 
the raillery of making the present 
Mr. Saunders a synonyme for 
elongalus, as though he were 
himself a type of “lengthened 
sweetness long drawn out,” repre- 
sents the ridiculous. But further, 
if there was any merit in Mr. 
Westwood’s idea, we mean his 
iidea, why was not Nigricans 
treated in a similar mode; or has 
Mr. W’’estwood less desire to exalt 
Mr. Curtis than Mr. Saunders. 
Mr. Curtis was an entomologist of 
great repute before Mr. Saunders 
was heard of. We fear Mr. West- 
wood has committed a grave blun- 
der.— I. I. 
Nemarks on Duplicates, ^c . — 
Allow me to remark upon a state- 
ment in the first leading article of 
‘ The Substitute,’ commencing at 
the 14th line, 2nd column, p. 1, 
which reads thus ; — “ yet the pro- 
per spirit is not to expect any re- 
turn at all.” Now this appears to 
me perfectly absurd. I have all I 
require of a species for my own 
cabinet, and why should I go 
many miles for more unless in the 
expectation of getting others, that 
1 have not, in exchange for them, 
whether it be an Apalura Iris for 
a Pieris Brassicce, or a Plusia 
Gamma for a Dasycampa rubigi- 
nea (for I consider all Lepidoptera 
equally valuable when duplicates, 
whether it be a Chrysophanus dis- 
par or a Vanessa Urticce, and 
should be equally willing to give 
the former for the latter as the 
latter for the former, if I wanted 
either.) Am I to get boxes, then 
work hard to get insects to put 
into them, pay postage, and ex- 
pect nothing but a “ beggarly array 
of empty boxes.” I say, sir, the 
proper spirit is to send as many, 
and as little injured, speeimens as 
you can (even if you retain the 
worst examples of the species you 
take in your own neighbourhood 
for yourself) to your correspond- 
ent, expecting he will do the same ; 
for I believe in every place there 
are what we call local species, 
consequently one can most likely 
replace them next season. I have 
been advised by Mr. Stainton to 
