ENTOMOLOGY. 217 



do not. I find, however, that their other lists, in the shape of nomenclatures, 

 do profess to give the names of all the British species, as those of the Dip- 

 lera, Anoplura, Euplexoptera, Orihoptera, and Hymenoptera; but this is 

 only indicated in the preface, and not at all on the title-page, but rather 

 the contrary. Thus if a person orders the "List of the species of British 

 animals in the collection of the British Museum — Part XV., nomenclature 

 of Diptera," he will, as Mr. Bree says, have a complete — or quasi com- 

 plete — list of the British species, but if he orders the one with the similar 

 title, "Lists of the specimens of Dipterous insects, in the collection of the 

 British Museum," he will, as I said, have only a list of the species pos- 

 sessed by the Museum; but how is any one to know beforehand by intu- 

 ition that there are two lists of Diptera etc., and that with such similar 

 titles the one gives only what it professes to give on the title-page, while the 

 other gives more? As to any general list being published hastily, I have 

 never recommended any such course, and I think that that notion is hardly 

 to be attached to what I said, seeing that Curtis' list was published twenty-one 

 years ago. If we wait \intil every species has been discovered and described, 

 we shall wait I think longer than we need: what I advocate is some one's 

 doing now, with the information we at present possess, what Curtis and 

 Stephens did in like manner in their day. As to its being impossible to be 

 done by any one man, "What man has done, man may do," and to come 

 to more "modern instances" than Curtis and Stephens, if my late friend 

 Mr. Hugh Strickland could by himself compile a general list of the whole 

 of Ornithology, Foreign as well as British, why cannot some Entomological 

 Strickland do the like by Entomology, British alone, with all the help he 

 has from others? Who are the workers in all the several departments? 

 How are the public to know that there are workers privately in all of them, 

 and why cannot the results of their several labours be put together? How, 

 moreover, are we to know that they are all at work simultaneously, and 

 will all conclude simultaneously? How, too, can Mr. Bree guarantee that by 

 the time that the last of them has finished, those who had finished before 

 him will not have to begin over again, especially when it is so the fashion 

 to alter everything, to suit the notions and idiosyncrasies of the different 

 writers. I cordially agree with Mr. Bree that Dawson and Clark and others 

 have done their parts well, and all that I wish to express my hope of is 

 that the results of their labours may not be left isolated, and comparatively 

 valueless, but combined as soon as may be with those of others in one 

 general list, like those of Curtis and Stephens, "Teres atque rotundus." — 

 F. O. Moeeis. 



Hardihh Jatos. — We copy the following from the "Report of the 

 meeting of the Academie des Sciences, of June 21st., 1858/' in the 

 "Revue et Mag. de Zoologie," for June: — "M. le Marechal Vaillant, at 

 the meeting of the 7th. of September, 1857, placed before the Academy, 

 balls brought from the Crimean expedition, in which larvae of insects had 

 hollowed out galleries to reside in during their metamorphosis. He now 

 presented a memoir, by M. Victor de Motschoulski, upon the insect which 



