92 PROCEEDINGS ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



Mr. Schwarz said that the distribution of insects is not as 

 simple as other forms of life and that they do not follow the 

 rules laid down by the students of bird and mammal life. In 

 each order of insects there are different rules, and each should 

 be studied by itself. Insects which are independent of plant 

 life do not follow the distribution of the plants, but one must 

 be careful that the insects are entirely independent, for while 

 directly independent, they may feed on insects living on plants, 

 as in the case of the Coccinellidae. In such cases they must fol- 

 low the plants, but, as is often found, the range of the insects 

 will not be as great as that of the plants, In the future it may 

 be found that insects like the Carabidae, which are appa- 

 rently independent of plants, may feed on a certain substance 

 which requires the presence of certain plants and so be forced 

 to follow the distribution of the plants. 



Mr. Banks stated that insects which feed on plants are 

 necessarily bound by their distribution, but that insects which 

 do not, are not bound by the rules governing the distribution 

 of plants, and cited many additional examples. 



Dr. Hopkins said that in the study of distribution one 

 must be exceedingly careful of the literature, which is full of 

 misidentifications, and in this manner liable to lead the stu- 

 dent astray. 



Under the heading "Short notes and exhibition of speci- 

 mens," Mr. Crawford showed a copy of Dr. Schmiedeknecht's 

 treatment of the Hymenopterous family Chalcididae, just pub- 

 lished in the "Genera Insectorum." He said: 



"This formidable appearing quarto volume covers 550 pages, 

 with 8 plates, of which the index consists of 50 pages. As 

 stated in the introduction, the classification adopted by Dr. 

 Ashmead is closely followed, the noticable changes consisting 

 of calling the group a family instead of a superfamily and the 

 adoption of 16 subfamilies instead of the 14 families of Ash- 

 mead. The additions in subfamilies are the Leucospidinae, 

 which are presented as distinct from the Chalcidiuae (the two 

 were considered as two subfamilies in the family Chalcididae 

 by Ashmead), and the Eupelmina- as distinct from the En- 

 cyrtinae (Dr. Ashmead considering these two as subfamilies in 

 the family Encyrtidse). Otherwise the grouping is the same, 



