Dec., '05] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 337 



such a valuable work, which represents his labors in this field for twenty- 

 ftve years. The book is published in good style, the typography being 

 excellent, and the half-tone work equal to any we have seen. This is 

 somewhat marred by the faulty technic in setting the specimens and in 

 many cases the specimens were in very poor condition. The first 30 

 pages are devoted to the general features of butterfly life, including 

 rearing, collecting and preserving. The names of the authors of species 

 and the generic names are omitted in the body of the book, and all specific 

 names are capitalized. A valuable feature is the list of butterflies of the 

 United States with the names of the coast species in black-faced type. 

 There is also a list of new species and varieties published in this book 

 and a list of some old species, generally unknown, herewith illustrated 

 or described. Then follows the descriptive part of the work. The author 

 has wasted some space in figuring trifling varieties, considered by most 

 writers as synonyms. This sort of thing is shown in pi. i, figs. 2 and 2b, 



4 and 4b, 5 and sb. The differences described in the text are not borne 

 out by the figures, and any good collection of snnnfheiis would show 

 variations of far greater extent and more worthy of names. Figs. 4 and 



5 are about as near alike as individuals get to be. This sort of thing re- 

 duces natural history to an absurdity. P. magnus, pi. 2, fig. 13, hardly 

 warrants a varietal name. Parnassius eversmanni has been taken in 

 some numbers in recent years in Alaska, and is so recorded in the liter- 

 ature. Pieris ochsenheimeri is a distinct species and is well figured in 

 Romanoff's great work. It is not a form of rapfe. Figs. 112, a, b, pi. XII, 

 are not carpenterii\)\\\. bremnerii. Carpenterii is a form of cybele. Figs. 

 119, a, b, are not bremnerii but rhodope. 



Some of the localities given are very vague and indefinite. This 

 should not be, as the author was the collector. Central California is a 

 pretty big place and so is Southern Arizona. The new species Melilua 

 eremita and RI. henuosa are given these indefinite localities. \Ye see no 

 advantage in describing such things as pi. 20, fig. 181. Mr. Wright has 

 described in Mclitceci a number of aberrations which are common in the 

 genus, but as they are figured, perhaps there is no harm done ! PI. 25, 

 fig. 277^ is not Ccenonympha kodiak, but is the common californica. 

 Figs. 282, a, b are not brenda but are ampelos. Fig. 2^3 is not paiuph i/ins. 

 The figures on plate 26 of the Chionobas nevadcnsis group show the 

 absurdity of making species out of them. They occur in many places in 

 their ranges of territory and are not confined to the restricted areas given 

 by Mr. W. H. Edwards. Lemonias zela $ and cleis 9 are one and the 

 same species. PI. 27, fig. 322, b, c is not Thcclu spinclonan. PI. 2S, ti.;. 

 347, b is Chrysophanus hcrmes Edw. and San Diego is the type locality. 

 Figs. 352 and 353 on pi. 28 are the same species. I.ycirna >in>nnu K 

 is a synonym of cncjus and came from the Fast Indies. The sam- may 

 be said for tcjua which is a synonym of strabo Fab. (see Streck. Khop. 

 et Het. Suppl., 3). Figs. 400 and 401 probably represent one s|i.-<-"u-s 

 408^, c is not Pholisora lena but the common Th\'if/icns ^<irif<i. 426 is 



