258 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST 



The author here reviewed commits all these errors, and his book would 

 have been better without them. As examples of mistakes in observation, we 

 may point out the following: April Insect Chart., Fig. 1. The figure is said to 

 represent one of the Trichoptera, which it illustrates with a caudal appendage 

 having two pairs of branches, something no North American insect of any 

 order has. May Insect Chart, Fig. 14. A crane-fly is drawn with netted venation 



a character which the artist should have restricted to his browns, duns and 

 drakes, August Insect Chart, Fig. 14. This "fluffy spinner," said to be one 

 of the Diptera, but is drawn with only four legs (all insects having six). The 

 original of this sketch probably was a Pterophorid moth. The author speaks a 

 number of times of his faithful representations of the insects and especially of 

 getting the colours true, but to those accustomed to good entomological illus- 

 trations, these are crude, and the colours, as reproduced unsatisfactory. 



Now, as to reasons for not adopting the classification of scientists Mr. 

 Rhead says: "European entomologists have divided insects into various orders; 

 each season finds them making new classifications so conflicting as to bewilder 

 the lay mind," (p. XVII). Taxonomy has had to bear many reproaches, but 

 this is the first we recall, to the effect that the insect orders are changed each 

 season. Other reasons given by the author for disregarding scientific classi- 

 fications are expressed in the following sentences: "I was asked by an angling 

 expert who was examining my drawings, "Why don't you give the proper 

 Latin names to each fly?" My answer was, "I would do so, but no ento- 

 mologist has yet made any effort to classify American trout insects into orders 

 or divisions, families and species as has been done in France and England." 

 (p. 102). 



It appears, therefore, that the works of Hagen and of Banks, culminating 

 in the latter 's catalogue of the Neuropteroid Insects (1907), which includes all 

 the browns, duns and drakes of Rhead, go for nothing, so far as this author is 

 concerned. Similarly, the works of Osten-Sacken, and of Alexander and the 

 Aldrich Catalogue of Diptera (1905) take care of all of his spinners and other 

 flies, but he knows it not. 



Our author makes the remarkable statement also that "Inquiries from 

 various State entomologists failed to locate a single volume or treatise on trout- 

 stream insects" (p. VII). He surely did not inquire of his own State ento- 

 mologist, for the fact is, that New York State issued long before the date of 

 Rhead 's work two very valuable and well illustrated reports on this very sub- 

 ject. These are Needham and Betten's "Aquatic Insects in the Adirondacks" 

 (1901), and "Aquatic Insects in New York State," by Needham, MacGillivray, 

 Johannsen and Davis (1903). The shorter papers bearing more or less on 

 trout stream insects, and publications on kindred topics are numerous. 



Another work entitled "Fishing with floating flies" (S. G. Camp, 1913), 

 varies somewhat from the book reviewed in nomenclature of insects, calling 

 the May-flies duns and the caddis-flies sedges. It has the commendable feature, 

 however, of quoting most of its entomological material from a standard work, 

 namely Kellogg 's "American Insects" (1905). — W. L. McAtee. 



