GEORGE HENRY HORN. IX 



sion or for consultation. Every one recalls its memories, and even 

 particular specimens recall incidents of interest. To me such a visit 

 is, therefore, more than the comparison of specimens, it puts me 

 again in touch with a friend. ... I regret greatly that many of 

 the traditions of the collection are known only to me. Frequently 

 specimens have something about them indicating their origin, and 

 types from Chaudoir, Mannerheim and others, even including Dejean, 

 may be known thereby. As many of these traditions concern indi- 

 vidual specimens it is hardly possible to give any general data. In 

 a collection of the character of that of LeConte it is important that 

 no label attached to a pin, however unimportant it may seem, should 

 be removed." 



We will not attempt to consider Dr. Horn's published entomo- 

 logical writings in detail. The accompanying bibliography by one 

 of his intimate friends, Mr. Samuel Henshaw, furnishes a list be- 

 lieved to be complete. By far the greater number of them deal with 

 the Coleopterous fauna of America north of Mexico, but a few ti-eat 

 of that of Central America and Mexico. The majority, moreover, 

 are written from the monographic, systematic standpoint. They are 

 estimated by Prof. Smith to contain studies and actual characteriza- 

 tions of by far the greatest number of the 1900 genera accredited 

 to North America, including 154 proposed as new, and descriptions 

 of more than half of the 11,000 species (1582 new). 



We cannot do more than endeavor to indicate those papers which, 

 in the judgment of Coleopterologists, are the most important. Mr. 

 Henshaw writes: "I consider his papers on the Carabidse'^^ (1881) 

 and Silphidse'" (1880) among the most valuable. It is hard to pick 

 out a few when nearly all have a uniform standarvl of excellence. 

 His Philonthii '55 (1884), Chheniini ^^ (1876), Dasyllidte '°^ (1880), 

 Chrysobothris '^^ (1886), and Aphodiini '9" (1887) show some of his 

 best work." 



Prof. Smith has expressed himself similarly : " When so much is 

 excellent it is difficult to assign comparative rank to the published 

 work ; but perhaps that on the genera of CarabidiB, 1881, may be 

 considered the best. It was certainly in some respects the most 

 thorough, the most revolutionary and the most convincing; for his 

 conclusions have secured practically universal acceptance. His 

 work on the Silphidje in 1880 while- not so brilliant, was even a 

 greater tax (m his powers, and I am not certain that he did not 

 himself feel most proud of this." 



TRANS. AM. ENT. SOC. (2) APRIL. 1898. 



