Vol. xxiii] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS 189 



or groups of allied plants are treated under those headings. The large 

 number of illustrations of injurious insects, coupled with their descrip- 

 tion, should enable any intelligent person to identify them and apply 

 the appropriate remedy. The book is written in a lucid way and 

 should prove very useful. Prof. Sanderson has had a wide experience 

 ns an economic entomologist and has used judgment in the selection 

 of remedies and control measures. The work covers the subject ad- 

 mirably and as well as it is possible to treat such a large subject within 

 the pagination of a single book. H. S. 



CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE LEPIDOPTERA OF 

 NORTH AMERICA, Vol. I, No. 3, Revision of the Megathymidae. By 

 William Barnes, S.B., and J. H. McDunnough, Ph.D. 



The authors call the family "giant skippers" and are ''inclined" to 

 give them super- family rank as Hesperiides. They do not consider 

 them related to the Castniidae, where they have been placed by some 

 authors. The comparative anatomy of the group, early stages and 

 habits as far as known are discussed in detail. The authors found the 

 sexual organs of value in specific separation and they were given 

 special consideration. The genus Aegiale Felder is used for the spe- 

 cies hesperiaris Walk., and the other species are placed under Mega- 

 tliyunts Scudder. Aegiale is separated from Megathymus by differen- 

 tial characters in the pulvillus. the squamation of the palpi and the 

 wing venation in the male. The Boreal American species have twice 

 been previously been treated as a whole ; by Dyar, Journ. N. Y. Ent. 

 Soc. 13, in, 1905, and by Skinner, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 37, 169, 

 1911. 



Some of the species are rare in collections. Sinithi was mentioned 

 by Skinner on pages i/o and 205. It was not in the table as no ma- 

 terial was at hand for study. No detailed study was made of Mega- 

 thymus in Dr. Skinner's paper as he knew that the present au- 

 thors had their paper well under way. Dr. Dyar need not have con- 

 fused streckeri and cofaqui as he studied Dr. Skinner's material con- 

 taining the types of streckeri and one male and two females of 

 cofaqui. The authors have carefully examined all the literature of 

 the subject and commend the work done by Dr. Skinner, saying Skin- 

 ner's identifications "appear" to be correct. 



Their studies of M. ucumocgcni are extremely interesting. This 

 species was described by Edwards, from one "male" and three females. 

 Barnes and McDunnough say that the type with the male label on it 

 is a female. It is not unlikely that Mr. Edwards confused the sexes, 

 as it is a very easy thing to do if you do imt dissect out the genitalia. 

 Ottolengui says that Doll caught seven specimens. Barnes says he 

 has a male of the original lot and states there is also a male in the 



