172 ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



work. Once verified, it would become thoroughly valuable. 

 Dr. Hulst favored the use of secondary sexual characters, and he 

 not only employed them in generic definition, but used them as 

 prime characters in his synoptic tables. This is an inconveni 

 ence in practice, for a species cannot be named unless both sexes 

 are at hand in the material for determination, which is often not 

 the case. However, this did not prevent Dr. Hulst from found 

 ing new genera on a female specimen only. He simply supplied 

 the missing male characters from his fertile imagination (e. g. 

 genus Pterotcea^ Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., xxiii, 349, 1896). Yet 

 in spite of defects, Dr. Hulst is badly missed, for he leaves no 

 successor in the study of the Geometridse. 



In regard to the higher Tineids, the Pyralids have received 

 very little attention. We have had no student devoting himself 

 to them as a specialty. Fortunately Dr. C. H. Fernald is now 

 engaged in this study, though his work is as yet unpublished. 

 Dr. Hulst published sundry new species in the Phycitinae. His 

 article on this group was published in 1890, and hardly comes 

 within our view. It has been followed by the first part of Ra- 

 gonot's great work, published in the RomanofF Memoirs, which 

 includes the Phycitinae of the world. We have not studied the 

 subject enough to be able to criticise this book. The Crambinae and 

 Pterophoridae have been acceptably treated by Dr. Fernald in small 

 separate publications. We do not like the use of a series of 

 alternatives based on shades of color, as in the separation of the 

 species of the genus Pterophorus. But in general the work 

 serves admirably for the purposes of determination. The Tor- 

 tricidaa have remained practically untouched for ten years, only 

 certain new species having been described. In the Tineids, 

 Lord Walsingham's work on the North American species has 

 gradually ceased. His work is so excellent that it may well 

 serve as a model to our future workers, both in its careful accu 

 racy and its conservatism. With its cessation there seemed at 

 first no successor, but lately three men have taken up the sub 

 ject, Dr. W. G. Dietz, Mr. W. D. Kearfott and Mr. August 

 Busck. Their work is as yet too small in quantity for much 

 criticism, but seems to have been begun rightly. We fear that 

 Dr. Dietz has a tendency to make species on too small charac 

 ters, judging by his Pigritia paper. Mr. Kearfott, too, has 



