ENTOMOLOGY. 187 



yet no amount of coaxing, forcing, or cooking has any influence on such, 

 insects as C. Jacobece, O. pudibunda, I. Monacha, E. lanestris, D. cceruleoce- 

 phala, and a host of others which we know to be single-brooded in a normal 

 state? As Mr. Greene himself says, I pause for a reply. The failure on the 

 part of the advocates of single-broodedness to produce facts, has not been 

 without its moral advantages; it has caused a searching into insect life by 

 young and old; the mind has been elevated from the miserable aquisitive 

 desire to possess and accumulate specimens, to the study of nature herself, 

 and it is pleasing to know and learn, that many fair friends and companions 

 have eagerly joined in this research, sharing a fount of pure pleasure. 

 These "incipients" are astonished to find how little they knew, and, like 

 ourselves, yet know, of the wonders of nature in general, and of insect life in 

 particular, and how imperfectly they have hitherto understood how heartfelt 

 were the expressions of the sacred writer, "Oh Lord, how manifold are Thy 

 works! in wisdom hast Thou made them all: the earth is full of Thy riches." 

 "He hath established them for ever: He hath given them a law which shall 

 not be broken." "Whoso is wise will ponder these things." 



Speaking of the rapid growth of larvae, I had eggs of P. palpina hatched 

 June 8th., larvse spun 27th., namely, nineteen days. They really fed only 

 eighteen days. — G. Gascoyne, Newark, June 19th., 1858. 



Nomenclature of Insects. — With reference to the reply given to my qugere 

 in the June number, by Mr. Bree, I was already aware of, and possess most 

 of the lists enumerated, but I was in hope to have heard either that there is, 

 or is likely soon to be published, a "full and complete" catalogue of the 

 whole of the British insects, if not of the/oreign, as far as may be. At least 

 we are all, as I said, at sixes and sevens. The British Museum lists are 

 exceedingly well done in themselves, but inasmuch as they only contain the 

 names of the species possessed by the museum, they are completely useless 

 for any other collection, for almost hopeless as it may be for any private 

 person to look for so large a collection as that possessed by the National 

 Museum, every one hopes to have every species, and if he has arranged only 

 for a complete number, every addition finds the space for it already pre-occupied. 

 Besides all which, the British Museum lists are in much too large a sized 

 print, so that they not only do not look well in themselves, but mar the 

 uniformity which there ought to be in a cabinet, if arranged partly by them 

 and partly with any other lists, (always in much smaller type,) Dawson and 

 Clark's for instance. Dawson and Clark's list, mentioned by Mr. Bree, is excellent 

 as far as it goes; I only wish that it contained the whole of the Coleoptera. 

 So is Stainton's list of the Tineina. Doubleday's new edition of the Lepidoptera 

 will also, I have no doubt, be as good as the former one was at the time. 

 But what is wanted is a new "Stephens" or "Curtis." Of course I do not 

 mean a reprint of their old editions, but a list on the plan of theirs, comprising 

 the whole of British entomology. I think such a catalogue would pay, especially 

 if printed with a wider margin against each column for notes, dates, etc., even 

 perhaps to the extent of there being only one printed colume on each page. 

 — F. O. Moeets, Nunburnholme Kectory, July 2nd., 1858. 





