76 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



determinations of species will, no doubt, prove convenient to field workers 

 and physicians, as she has largely avoided the use of microscopical 

 structures. In the title the species of the United States are said to be 

 treated of, but in reality, only those of the Atlantic Coast region are dealt 

 with, llie book has not been revised to date, the most recent contribu- 

 tions to the knowledge of the subject being unnoticed ; but for this we 

 can scarcely blame the author, as the subject proceeds at such a rapid 

 pace that any book must lag behind to some extent. 



We regret to notice a lamentable lack of credit to Dr. Howard and 

 his assistants. The book reads like a second edition of Dr. Howard's 

 work. Mr. Coquillett's classification has been absolutely adhered to ; the 

 descriptions of larvae sound so familiar that the reviewer involuntarily 

 turned to the title page to see if they were not his own, while the 

 illustrations show the effects of the influence of Mr. F. Knab's expert 

 artistic criticism. Probably Miss Mitchell herself scarcely realizes how 

 much information she has absorbed from the Government Bureaus. We 

 should like her to try and imagine what her book would have been like if 

 she had written it before she came to Washington. Of Dr. Howard's 

 assistants, Mr. Coquillett only receives some, though inadequate, 

 recognition. His name might have better assisted in gracing the title 

 page. A certain obtuseness of scientific conscience is, we think, 

 responsible for this condition, and it has further led our author to publish 

 her work independently, althougl] she was employed to assist in the 

 preparation of the much-delayed Carnegie Institution Monograph, and had 

 in her hands for study the material collected for that work. An attempt 

 has been made to avoid responsibility for this action by re-examining 

 those species that could be found in the collections of the New Jersey 

 and New York State entomologists, and we have no doubt that all the 

 figures were carefully redrawn out of office hours. A more candid course 

 on Miss Mitchell's part would not have detracted from the credit due her, 

 though it might possibly have prevented the publication of the book. 

 Her action in copyrighting drawings which she had been paid to prepare 

 for the Carnegie Institution Monograph, is certainly indefensible. 

 Following the example set by the objects of her study, Miss Mitchell has 

 played the part of a feminine Psorophora among the scientific yEdids of 

 Washington. The ^Edids themselves can do no less than commend the 

 work, however much they may deprecate its manner of production. Our 

 readers will find it a useful handbook. Harrison G. Dyar. 



Mailed February 6th, 1908. 



