Page:The Stolen Bacillus.djvu/250

ever these may be) by Pawkins, in which he extinguished a new species created by Hapley. Hapley, who was always quarrelsome, replied by a stinging impeachment of the entire classification of Pawkins.^[1] Pawkins in his "Rejoinder"^[2] suggested that Hapley's microscope was as defective as his power of observation, and called him an "irresponsible meddler"—Hapley was not a professor at that time. Hapley in his retort,^[3] spoke of "blundering collectors," and described, as if inadvertently, Pawkins' revision as a "miracle of ineptitude." It was war to the knife. However, it would scarcely interest the reader to detail how these two great men quarrelled, and how the split between them widened until from the Microlepidoptera they were at war upon every open question in entomology. There were memorable occasions. At times the Royal

1. "Remarks on a Recent Revision of Microlepidoptera." Quart. Journ. Entomological Soc., 1863.
2. "Rejoinder to certain Remarks," &c. Ibid. 1864.
3. "Further Remarks," &c. Ibid.