394 Retrospective Criticism, 



MandibulaVa. HaustellaVa. 



6. Hymenoptcra. III. Homaloptera. 



7. Sti^eps-qitera* II. Diptera. IV. Aphaniptera. 



1. Coleoptera. 5. Trichoptera. I. Lepidoptera. V. A'ptera. 



2. Dermdptera. 4. Neuroptera. VII. Homoptera. VI. Hemiptera. 



3. Orthoptera. 



Mr. Newman's thus : — 



Orthoptera. (VII.) Hemiptera. 



Coleoptera. Neuroptera. (5.) Lepidoptera. 



Hymenoptera. (^0 Diptera. 



In this last arrangement, if we place the genus T^hrips in its proper loca- 

 tion, at No. VII., and the A'ptera of my Catalogue at No. V., their situ- 

 ations between the typical mandibulated and haustellated groups clearly 

 point out, according to the general fact that the characters of any conter- 

 minous group assimilate with those of the adjoining, their tendency to 

 become mandibulate ; while, on the other hand, if the Trichoptera be placed 

 at No. 5., the cause of their being mandibulate, or approaching thereto, is 

 equally manifest. It is, therefore, evident, that, by considering insects as 

 divisible into two great groups, in accordance with Clairville's views, his 

 followers are not guilty of such " glaring inconsistencies " as a mere 

 prima facie appearance indicates-}-; and I may add that his arrangement 

 was not " unhesitatingly adopted " by me. It may also be observed, that 

 the location of the A'ptera in my arrangement corresponds with the tend- 

 ency of opposite points of the circle to resemble each other, as discovered 

 by MacLeay. I am. Sir, yours, &c. — J. F. Stephens. March 2. 1832. 



St^gia not a New Holland Gemcs, as stated in Mr. Newman's Essay on 

 /Sphinx vespiformis. — Sir, In my friend Newman's excellent little essay, 

 Stygia is said to be a New Holland genus : I feel myself bound, in justice 

 to my friend, to state that this error arose from my inadvertence, and his 

 too great confidence in my accuracy. One species of this genus is a native 

 of France, and one, I believe, of North America; but none have been 

 found in New Holland. Allow me to request from your readers an atten- 

 tive perusal of this ingenious work, and a careful comparison of the system 

 therein propounded and the quinarian, the only other system which can be 

 said to be an approximation to nature. I am, Sir, yours, &c. — E, Double- 

 day. March 12. 1832. 



British White Butterflies. — Sir, In Mr. Rennie's excellent paper on this 

 interesting subject (Vol. II. p. 224.), no mention is made of Hipparchia 

 Galathea, which surely as legitimately deserves a place among the " white 

 butterflies " as Gonepteryx rhamni ; and this is admitted. I am, Sir, 

 yours, &c. — C. Nov. 25. 1831. 



A figure of the Hipparchia Galathe« will be found in p. 338. of our 

 present Number (fig. 74. b) ; and also one of a most remarkable variety 

 of the same species, in p. 335. ; with valuable remarks on each, in their 

 respective places, by Mr. Bree. The valuable strictures of this gentleman, 

 in Vol. III. p. 242., on the probability that Pontia Charicle« is merely a 



* Like all systematists v/hose schemes are shackled by numbers, Mr. 

 Newman finds it convenient to omit such orders as Strepsiptera, &c. 

 (printed above in Italics), as they militate against the harmony of the 

 cabalistic seven ; though they are palpably of greater importance than any 

 septenary division of either of his larger circles. 



-|- The position of Oiketicus amongst the Lepidoptera, while Psyche is 

 distantly removed into the Neuroptera, is unquestionably inconsistent with 

 a natural arrangement; yet those genera are so placed by Mr. Newman: 

 thus showing, when detail is attempted, how fiitile all our systems become. 



