THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 117 



The list is beautifully and clearly printed and the proof reading has 

 been exceedingly careful. After having gone over a number of names 

 and after spending some hours with the book, I have found but one error 

 of spelling. The labor of compiling the list has been evidently great, and 

 Mr. Scudder speaks of it in terms which shows how arduous it really was. 

 The author was helped by those to whom he applied for lists of the gen- 

 eric names proposed by them, however, and Prof Marsh went to the 

 trouble of printing the references to his own numerous genera. 



The list can hardly be thoroughly tested by any one student, who can 

 only be expected to know his own genera and those of others in his 

 specialty. In the NoduidcB and the Moths generally I find a larger num- 

 ber of omissions than I should have expected. In the Butterflies I find 

 no reference to the genus Feimeca, a name used by Mr. Scudder and all 

 who have written on Tarquiniiis since it was proposed. I also find two 

 mistakes which should not have been made. The genus Euck?Hensia is 

 given as = Hamadi-yas of Boisduval, whereas it was proposed for 

 Hamadryas of Clemens, preoccupied by Boisduval and Hiibner. Also 

 the genus Copabhpharon is credited wrongly to me, and the original cita- 

 tion for Argyrophyes is not given. If these are fair samples of the 

 reliability of the work, it would be wrong to praise it and its usefulness 

 might be considered doubtful. It is probable, however, that the intention 

 was not to give all the genera (as they have not, I think, been all collated 

 out of the books of which Mr. Scudder gives a list), and the mistakes 

 above pointed out may be exceptions. Of this each student will be able 

 to judge, and it would be well for the work to be publicly examined by 

 different scientists and the mistakes pointed out before Mr. Scudder pub- 

 lishes again on the subject. 



The error of spelling alluded to above is on page 130, where Etifitchia 

 is written Eiifichia. It will be of course impossible to get all the names, 

 but about twenty-five names proposed for genera of Lepidoptera which I 

 looked for, I could not find in the List. These names were published 

 within twenty years up to 1880. This number is very likely less than the 

 real omissions of names for genera in the order Lepidoptera. There has 

 been probably too great reliance placed on the contributions of authors, 

 at the expense of personal research. We cannot suppose that there has 

 been any private influence brought to bear on a compilation of this char- 

 acter, but there has been an effort to display very fully the generic names 

 of certain authorities, while the genera proposed by those who have not 



