98 Journal New York Entomological Society. [Vol xm. 



theidae by Pagenstecher, the Epicopiidae by Janet and Wytsman, the 

 species or varieties of Leptocircus by Wytsman and the Ornithoptera 

 by Rippon. These papers are too short to require serious comment, 

 except that we would blame the editor for allowing such a characa- 

 ture of a synoptic table as that of the Ornithoptera genera to get into 

 print. Mr. Rippon has evidently not the faintest idea of how a table 

 ought to be constructed, and, until he will take lessons in the rudi- 

 ments of entomological carpentry, his large knowledge of and great 

 interest in the most beautiful of all the butterflies will be prejudiced 

 in the eyes of his fellow workers. 



Finally we come to the first serious publication, the Hesperiida;, 

 by P. Mabille, covering 210 pages. The treatment seems both 

 thoroughly advanced and conservative, although badly hampered in 

 places by lack of material. For example, some of the American 

 genera of the subfamily Pamphilinre, section B, are given in a separate 

 synoptic table, as the author had not the material to properly cor- 

 relate them with the rest. The index is given in an excellent form 

 but is incomprehensibly divided in two parts and it has a number of 

 omissions. The treatment of the North American species is disap- 

 pointing. Seventy-five out of our nominal two hundred species are 

 entirely omitted. We are at a loss to imagine any adequate reason 

 for this, as the author includes several lists of " species incertas sedis " 

 and we should look for our missing species there if the author had 

 been unable to recognize them. It looks like a failure to properly 

 study the literature. We hope to be able to return to this subject and 

 assign these seventy-five species to their proper genera. We are 

 sorry to note some inconsistencies in the synoptic tables. For ex- 

 ample, in the table on pages 14 to 18, we find (under 7) " Pas de pli 

 costal," which leads us finally to 27 where we read : "un pli costal 

 chez le rjV' . . . Genus Coccieus G. <\: S." How is one to use 

 this table ? If Cocceius has a costal fold, it should come in the section 

 with a costal fold, where it would apparently fall next to Plestia Mab. 

 Again under 33 is the second alternative " Pas de pinceau semblable" 

 (/. e., Pas de pinceau de poils couches sur de dessus ou le dessous des 

 ailes inferieures ), which leads us to 40, where is " Un pinceau de poils 

 couches dans le pli abdominal . . . Genus Pyrrhopygopsis G. & S." 

 The genus Orneates G. & S. is in the table twice, while Murgaria 

 Wats., Euschemon Macl., Mionectes Mab. and Marela Mab. are en- 

 tirely omitted therefrom. 



