TE EE E T EF FIE EZ EE Aaa a 
A ARS Y iii A AR Pa E A P De « À 
SE St Suita o u ME 
FB + STEPEI 
a Le a ln ne i Z lr 
b 
| 
"| 
d 
A 
A AA IR IE IAS A E AO RA E n n a at st A 
9 
A RECLAMATION. 
In “Insect Life,” No. 10, Prof. Riley adds some interesting in 
formation concerning Platypsyllus, and figures both the larva and 
imago. He also gives a resumé of the literature, but whether in- 
tentionally or not, omits all mention of my paper (Trans. Am. Ent. 
Soc. 1888), in which the larva is fully described and figured. This 
omission is all the more inexcusable, as the first public exhibition 
of the larva and my figures was made before the Entomological 
Society of Washington, some time in March [April,] 1888, Prof. 
Riley being present and taking part in the discussion. 
(CHEO. TI HORN, MY 
In response to the above reclamation Dr. Riley, in ‘‘ En- 
i Nr ui “NG € > ` à a ny AC A sd 
tomologica Americana’ February, 1890, pp. 27-30, pub- 
lishes an article with the following title : ** Platypsyllus— 
egg and ultimate larva—Dr. Horn's reclamation.” Con- 
cerning the ** ultimate larva’’ I will venture one criticism— 
it 15 more than probable that the mouth is represented on the 
wrong end of the head, as any one will see by a comparison 
of the figures previously given by Dr. Riley and myself of 
the larva. 
I have now, more especially, to deal with his answer to 
my "Reclamation. This I reprint, and will reply to in 
answers corresponding with the inserted numbers. 
While upon this subject of Zatypsyllus I may remark that the 
note (page 122 of E. A. for last June) which appeared while I was 
in Paris amazed me not a little, and obliges me to joe Dr. Horn's 
memory with the following statement of facts : 
I. The paper in“ Insect Life,” No. Io, as stated in the foot-note 
was read April 20, 1888, before the National Academy. It was read 
by request.* In it I distinctly refer to Dr. Horn’s first announce- 
ment of the larva betore the Washington Entomological Society. [1] 
1. But without the slightest intimation that I had ex- 
pressed an opinion of its coleopterous organization and de- 
* [ am informed by the best authority that the National Academy does not 
request non-members to read papers before it. Such papers may be read after 
certain formalities have been observed, of which the Academy’s request does not 
form a part. 
9 
fended it in argument. I was not placed on a higher plane 
than my friend who sent it to me and who knew what he 
sent: 
2. I could not refer to his own paper on the subject, which was 
not published till some time after mine was read [2]. The date, 
March. 1888,-on his signature is unjustified and misleading [3]. My 
assistance, acknowledged in his paper, did not begin till April 10, 
1888 [4]. I was in correspondence with him on the subject during 
the fest of the month, and asked for advance sheets of his paper in 
order to be able to refer to it, put the Doctor found it inconvenient 
to send them as his Platypsyllus paper formed part of a more gen- 
eral one [5]. Hewas fully advised of my intention to read a paper, 
and when, unable to get his advance sheets, I concluded that it 
might be advantageous to have my conclusions as to details pub- 
lished independently and uninfluenced by his, he encouraged this 
course. as I had offered to defer to his wishes [6]. 
2. True, but before že published, and he doubtless would 
have found an opportunity to correct an important error, 
otherwise, had he detected it before printing. 
3. This accident has been explained. 
4. He thus acknowledges the rapidity (10-20 Apl.) with 
which the work was done in his Department after my an- 
nouncement, notwithstanding the ‘‘ embarras’ of more 
important work. | 
5. Shows that he knew of my paper and of its progress 
through the press. 
6. Very true in its careful wording, but the main part of 
the conclusions which I had demonstrated he omits to men- 
tion to my credit, viz., the coleopterous nature of the larva. 
3. My paper was reproduced in ‘‘ Insect Life” after I left for Paris, 
because few ehtomologists had seen it in the ‘‘ Scientific American, 
to which it was sent after reading. In reproducing it I could not 
well have referred to Dr. Horn’s paper, [7] nor have made any 
change or addition whatever without preparing a supplementary 
paper to include subsequent notes both on Platypsyllus, Leptinus 
and Zepfinillus, which, as the Doctor had reason to know, | was 

