From the Canadian Entomologist Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 117, 118, 119. June, 1878. 
Personal— In part No. 2, “ Lepidoptera, Eliopaloceres and Heteroceres,” the author, Mr. Herman Strecker, 
makes a most uncalled-for and ungentlemanly attack on me, which in justice to myself, much as I dislike introducing 
matters of this sort into a scientific periodical, I can scarcely allow to pass unnoticed. 
It appears that Mr. Strecker received last summer, from Mr. Couper, specimens of a Papilio which he had 
taken on the Island of Anticosti while on a collecting tour there. At first Mr. S. says he thought it might be my 
P. brevicauda, described in a foot note in “Packard’s Guide,” but on comparing the description there given with 
his specimens, he found them to differ in some important particulars. He then proceeds to say (I copy verb, et lit.) 
“I now again had the pleasant excitement incidental to endeavoring to study out bare descriptions, unaccompanied 
by figures, and in my misery I wrote to Mr. Couper, in Montreal, requesting him to try to see the types of Brevi- 
cauda, and compare his examples with them, or if that was impossible, to write to Mr. Saunders, of Ontario, Canada, 
who described it, and with whom he was acquainted, concerning the species ; after some time Mr. Couper wrote ‘ I 
communicated with the Rev. Canon Innes (in whose collection are specimens of Brevicauda) and Mr. W. Saunders, 
asking for information regarding P. Brevicauda ; up to this instant no answer from either. ’ This certainly was not 
very satisfactory, but as I was not particularly anxious to make a fool of myself by re-cliristening old species, I im- 
portuned Mr. Couper to try the gentleman with another epistolary shot; in due time, under date March 17, 1873, 
came another letter from Couper thus : ‘ I have purposely delayed a reply to your favor of 2nd, because since its 
receipt I wrote again to Mr. W. Saunders for the desired information, and my letter was written in terms which 
could not deter him from answering; however, no answer has been received.’ Alter receiving this letter, I, of 
course, concluded that Mr. Saunders’ time was of too much value to be encroached upon, and requested Mr. Couper 
to by no means trouble him again, as his dignified silence at last brought me to a proper sense of my true position, 
and was a merited punishment to both Couper and myself for our temerity.” 
I did receive the two letters referred to from Mr. Couper. In the first, dated Jan. 21, Mr. C. asks me where I 
obtained the Papilio described as brevicauda, and whether I would loan him a specimen, as he wished to compare it 
with some Anticosti Papilios which had been named for him by his U. S. correspondents as P. polyxenes. There 
were other matters referred to in the letter which I wished to attend to before replying to Mr. Couper, and as I was 
then extremely busy, and was obliged to leave home for a while, not knowing either that there was any pressing 
need of an immediate answer, I deferred writing for a time. In the second letter, dated March 3rd, Mr. C. refers 
again among other matters to P. brevicauda, expresses no disappointment at my not answering his first, does not even 
now ask for a prompt reply, or hint that any of the information he desires was for anyone but himself. Indeed, 
after referring to some 'differences which he thought existed between his Anticosti specimens and my brevicauda from 
Newfoundland, he says : “It is my intention to investigate this matter further,” and referred to the opportunities he 
hoped to have on revisiting the Island. To this second letter I replied as promptly as possible, within a few days, 
and gave Mr. C. all the information in my power in reference to brevicauda, as well as satisfactory reasons why I 
had not written sooner. 
It was scarcely kind of Mr. Couper to give me no hint of the terrible state of excitement under which his friend; 
poor Mr. Strecker, was at that time laboring, boiling over, as he evidently was, with indignation towards one who 
was perfectly innocent of all knowledge of his wants. Had I known the state of his mind my sympathies would 
at once have been aroused and I should have written promptly, when I suppose this formidable bull of his would 
never have been fulminated against me, and I should have been spared from being impaled on the sharp end of 
Mr. Strecker’s irony, where, like a beetle on a pin, I am now supposed to be wriggling and writhing in great dis- 
comfort. 
I do not know Mr. Strecker and have never had any correspondence with him, but I do feel sorry for him, that 
he should in his anger have allowed himself to use language so discourteous in reference to one who was a perfect 
stranger to him, without taking pains to enquire whether it was deserved or not. I can scarcely designate such a 
proceeding under such circumstances, as anything less than contemptible, and quite unworthy of a naturalist or a 
gentleman. 
Mr. Strecker further remarks in the paragraph following that last quoted : “ However, I believe this is distinct 
from Brevicauda, and if it be not, it is an absurdity to retain that name; the probability after all is that Brevicauda 
41 
