OF WASHINGTON, VOLUME XIV, 1912. 205 



large extent in mammals and in birds; they are sometimes 

 developed in a remarkable manner, as in the birds of paradise, 

 of which some 20 or 30 species in nearly as many genera are 

 distinguished and recognized by all ornithologists entirely 

 on these accessory characters, such as peculiar feathers on 

 the forehead, tail, or elsewhere, found in the male, while the 

 female is quite ordinary. Dr. Gill said that if such a male were 

 divested of its feathers it could not be recognized generically. 



-Dr. Hopkins spoke of a minute scolytid beetle from the 

 Philippines, in which the tibia of the male is very broad and 

 carries very long, branched, featherlike hairs and a long spine, 

 neither of which is found in the female. 



-Dr. Dyar showed a copy of "Moths of the Limberlost," 

 by Gene Stratton Porter (pub., Doubleday, Page & Co., 1912). 

 This is a book intended for "nature lovers," not for students 

 or even beginners. It gives a general account of the appear- 

 ance and habits of some of our larger moths and of the doings 

 of the author and members of her family in relation to these 

 moths, all very entertainingly told. The author herself has 

 apparently been very unfortunate in her use of books. Harris's 

 "Insects Injurious to Vegetation," which would probably 

 have been her best guide, she seems never to have heard of. 

 She searched in vain through Holland's "Moth Book" and 

 Packard's "Guide to the Study of Insects" for details of the 

 life histories of two species of Catocala that came under her 

 notice. The authors of these works, as well as other entomolo- 

 gists, receive scant courtesy at her hands, which seems scarcely 

 edifying and somewhat detracts from the tone of the book. 

 The two species of Catocala referred to above, C. amatri.v 

 Hubn. and C. neogama S. & A., are well-known inhabitants 

 of the cottonwood and hickory, respectively, overwintering 

 in the egg state in crevices of the bark after the manner of 

 other species of the genus. Is it a fact that these well-known 

 details of the histories of our moths are so buried in the 

 literature that one comparatively unacquainted therewith can 

 not find them out? We scarcely think so, but attribute the 

 failure to the author's ill fortune in selection of literature and 

 advisors. In another place (p. 343) the author expresses the 



