i897. SOME NEW BOOKS. 201 



who reads the pamphlet is like to busy himself at once with some 

 contributions of his own to the problem. We congratulate the 

 conductors of The Entomologist on placing before their readers so 

 stimulating a piece of work. 



The Common Drone-Fly. 



The Natural History of Eristalis Tenax or The Drone-Fly. By George 

 Bowdler Buckton. 8vo. Pp. iv., 91. With illustrations, 9 pis. London: 

 Macmillan & Co., 1S95. Price 8s. nett. 



The drone-fly is among the largest of British Diptera, and fulfils one 

 of the first requirements in the case of an animal selected as a type 

 for scientific study, in that it is exceedingly common. The larva of 

 the insect is of remarkable structure, and the fly itself is peculiarly 

 interesting, especially on account of its deceptive resemblance to the 

 hive-bee. It will therefore be understood that in the hands of a 

 competent writer, the drone-fly might be made to render a real service, 

 not only to dipterology, but to comparative entomology besides. 

 Alas for our fond hopes! The "Natural History of Eristalis tenax'' 

 has yet to be written. 



To deal satisfactorily with the natural history of even a single 

 insect within the limits of some ninety pages of large type demands 

 much careful study, notonly of the insect itself, but also of other forms 

 belonging to the same order, not to speak of an intimate acquaintance 

 with the work of previous writers. We are not surprised when 

 Mr. Buckton tells us that his "special attention to Eristalis''' dates 

 from "the summers of 1893 ^"^ 1894." The whole book, including 

 the illustrations, bears unmistakable evidence of hasty work, lack of 

 thoroughness, and want of grip, while disjointed remarks and hazy 

 speculations, couched in high-flown phraseology, are too often made 

 to do duty for a concise and suggestive statement of facts. 



The pages devoted to Introduction and Classification contain so 

 many errors that we can only allude to a few of the more glaring. On 

 page 4 and elsewhere, the author perpetuates the time-honoured myth 

 that the larvae of Volucella prey upon those of wasps and hive-bees. 

 The larvae of Volucella bomhylans and of other species of the same genus 

 are very common in the nests of Vespa germanica and in those of 

 humble bees, certain species of which V. bomhylans closely resembles ; 

 but it is now known that they act as scavengers, feeding merely upon 

 the refuse of the cells, and not upon the progeny of their hosts. 

 (See Natural Science, vol. ii., p. 54). At the foot of page 6 (where, 

 by the way, the Oestridae are twice called Astriddd), we iiave a table 

 purporting to show the systematic position of Eristalis according to 

 Walker, in which, while the Nycteribidae are allowed to represent the 

 Eproboscidea, the much better known family Hippoboscidse apparently 

 belongs neither to this section nor to that which is still blest with a 

 proboscis. Why are Prof. Brauer's researches upon the classification 

 of Diptera, and Williston's " Synopsis of North American Syrphidae " 

 — the most important revision yet attempted of the family to which 

 Eristalis belongs — completely ignored ? 



On the following page we are told that in predaceous Diptera the 

 labium "operates like a piercer," and a little later that " the imagos 

 of Diptera possess no mandibles." Statements of this sort simply 

 take one's breath away, and in quoting them it is difficult to refrain 

 from copious notes of exclamation. '■'■Eristalis arbustorum, Linn." is 

 quoted quite correctly on page 8 as the name of a distinct species, 

 but on the following page it appears as a synonym of Eristalis tenax. 



