329 



SOME NEW BOOKS. 



Moths and their Classification. 



The Lepidoptera of the British Islands. By Charles G. Barrett. Vol. iii. 

 Heterocera, Bombyces, Noctuae. 8vo. Pp. 396. London : L. Reeve & Co., 

 1896. Price I2S. (Large paper edition with coloured plates. Price, in parts, 



A Handbook to the Order Lepidoptera. ByW.F. Kirby. Vol. iii. Pp. xxvii., 

 308, 26 coloured plates and many figures in text. Vol. iv. Pp. 246, 31 plates. 

 8vo. Allen's Naturalists' Library. London : W. H. Allen & Co., 1897. 

 Price 6s. each. 



Monograph of the Bombycine Moths of America North of Mexico. Part ii. 

 Family L— Notodontidae. By Alfred S. Packard. 4to. Pp. 292, 49 pis., 9 

 maps, and 88 figs, in text. Philadelphia: National Academy of Sciences, vol. 

 vii., first memoir, 1895. Received March 13, 1897. 



Two years elapsed between the notices in Natural Science of the 

 first and second volumes of Mr. Barrett's work. It is satisfactory to 

 be able to review the third volume seventeen months only after the 

 second. The author has now given us the remaining families of the 

 " Bombyces " — the " Bombycidae," Endromidae, Saturniidae, Drepa- 

 nulidae, and Notodontidae ; and the first instalment of the " Noctuae" 

 — including the Cymatophoridae and four genera of the trifid Noctuidae. 



In commenting on Mr. Barrett's second volume, we expressed 

 regret that he had adhered to that old classification of British moths 

 which has been so largely amended by modern workers. In the 

 present volume it will be noticed that he adheres to Stainton's plan 

 of classing the Cymatophoridae with the Noctuidae on account of 

 " the structure and usefulness of the tongue, their love of sweet 

 substances as food and their crepuscular flight." These, however, 

 are adaptive characters which cannot be allowed much weight as 

 indications of true affinity. In the more recent classification of 

 Staudinger the Cymatophoridae are placed among the " Bombyces " ; 

 but this group must now be considered quite untenable as a natural 

 assemblage of families. It might possibly be better to abandon all 

 divisions of the Lepidoptera between the order and the family, and we 

 should then see the Cymatophoridae in their natural position between 

 the Notodontidae and Noctuidae. The genus Asteroscopus or Petasia, 

 which is now usually regarded as noctuid, is retained by Mr. Barrett 

 among the notodonts. 



Mr. Barrett keeps the name " Bombycidae " for the first family 

 dealt with in this volume, although he rightly uses Lasiocanipa for the 

 genus of eggar moths, which many British entomologists erroneously 

 call '' Bovibyx.'" The latter name belongs properly to the common 

 silkworm ; the true Bombycidae are unrepresented in the British 

 fauna, and the eggar family should be known as Lasiocampidae. 



Mr. Barrett's description of our commonest Lasiocampa — L. 

 qiievcus^s of exceptional interest. He does not consider that the 



