THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 113 



references ; but if he did not think that many of them would be perforce 

 adopted, he could much more simply have staied /orma A, forma B and 

 so on. As a matter of fact, it is \\\t'i& formas that have prompted me to 

 write this notice, for it is very difficult to understand how some of them 

 can fail to find their way into the catalogue as legitimate taxonomic units, 

 such for instance as Farallonicus under parvicollis, CatalmcB under 

 omtss2is, interstitialis under carbonarius, aimectatis under obsoletus, 

 ordinatus under pilosus and in many other similar cases. Indeed it 

 becomes evident that \kit%t formas, which in many instances have been 

 given perfectly distinctive and proper names, may produce much trouble 

 and confusion, and I would strongly advise the author to issue a supplement 

 in which he definitely states which of them he would have perpetuated as 

 subspecies and which are to be conclusively dropped; for that they all 

 have the status at least of subspecies cannot for a moment be held in 

 dispute, when we view such conservatism as prompted him to write 

 porcatus as a variety oi obsoletus^ or btu?inipes as a variety oi pimelioides, 

 instead of giving them their evidently proper status as distinct species. 



In this connection it should be stated that conipositus Csy., is by no 

 means a form oi hispilabris, as was in fact admitted by the author himself 

 when he viewed the type in my collection, though unfortunately not until 

 after his monograph had appeared in print. It is a wholly distinct and 

 isolated species, not closely related in any way to hispiiabris, and this 

 remark can be repealed in regard to elegans Csy., an isolated species 

 referred by Dr. Blaisdell to dentipes, which it does not in the least 

 resemble. 



The amount of conscientious work made obvious by the extremely 

 detailed account of the sexual characters, is most unusual in systematic 

 studies of this kind; but, although a very interesting contribution to 

 morphology, it must be held to be of comparatively little practical utility 

 in determining species ; to even thoroughly understand it, one would be 

 compelled to devote almost as much time to painstaking dissection as that 

 expended by the author himself. 



In conclusion there are but two other points which might be alluded 

 to in reluctantly criticising this voluminous monograph, the first relating to 

 the title, which is so lengthy as to be objectionable to the bibliographers ; 

 it is a mistake to try to describe the scope of a paper so minutely in the 

 title itself. The second relates to the gender given the specific names, 



