±g6 The Irish Naturalist. [Nov., 



to find eight pages of press-uotices of Mr. Tutt's other works on natural 



history inserted between the explanation of the plates and the plates 



themselves. We hope that a new edition of the book will speedily be 



called for, when these advertisements may be relegated to their proper 



place at the extreme end of the volume. 



G. H. C. 



A Handbook of British Lepidoptera. By Edward Meyrick, 



B.A., F.z.s., F.E-S. Pp. 843. London : Macmillan & Co., 1895. Price 



\os. nett. 



Pressure on our space has prevented earlier notice of this book, which, 

 like Mr. Tutt's, presents the British lepidoptera to the student in a new 

 light. But, instead of being confined to the butterflies only, it deals with 

 all the British species of the order, and consequently comes before us as 

 a claimant to the place on our bookshelves long occupied by Stainton's 

 time-honoured "Manual." 



That the arrangement adopted by Mr. Meyrick is revolutionary will 

 be inferred when we state that he places the Arctiida, or Tiger-moths, at 

 the head of the series, and inserts the butterflies in the middle of his 

 system, between the Lasiocampidce, or Bggar-moths, and the Pyralids 

 The families of the old " Bombyces "—such as the cossids, hepialids, 

 sesiids, &c., which are now well known to be closely related to the so- 

 called " Microlepidoptera " — are, as might be expected, to be found in the 

 place required by their true affinities. It seems to us, however, that the 

 removal of the butterflies from the headship of the lepidoptera is not 

 warranted, when we consider the very great specialisation of their most 

 elaborated members ; while other eminent students of the order do not 

 consider the ArctiidcE an extremely highly developed family. 



The families, genera, and species are differentiated by the help of 

 tables, and there are phylogenies of the tribes, genera, and families. 

 Though quite in sympathy with Mr. Meyrick's desire to present the 

 subject in the light of the doctrine of descent, we question the wisdom 

 of genealogies which seem to indicate that existing genera of insects are 

 the direct descendants of other existing genera. 



In his definition of genera Mr. Meyrick is inclined to rely too exclu- 

 sively on isolated characters, especially those drawn from wing-neuration, 

 and the result is often a cumbersome assembly of species. We believe, 

 however, that wing-neuration, being probably little affected by adaptive 

 modification, is a safe guide to family relationships. The separation of the 

 Coppers and Blues by Mr. Meyrick into only two genera, on the character 

 of the eyes being hairy or glabrous, results in a most curious division of 

 the insects, and we should not envy the naturalist who endeavoured to 

 apply this method to the classification of the Lycccnida: of the world. We 

 much regret to see that in the nomenclature of his genera, Mr. Meyrick 



