240 Journal New York Entomological Society. |Vol. xv. 



value only, and any attempt to employ them for higher taxonomic 

 groups, must result in confusion and disaster. 



Mr. Theobald remarks that the larvae have "a. wide range . . . 

 in characters, not only in different stages of the same species, but in 

 the same stage in the same species." This is not a fact. Mr. Theo- 

 bald is utterly unqualified to speak on the subject, being ignorant of the 

 first principles of larval characters, as his published figures show. He 

 has never published an original figure of a larva that showed a diag- 

 nostic character, nor is he apparently able to apprehend them when 

 pointed out. The phrase " not only in different stages " would imply 

 that some of the larval differences pointed out by students of the early 

 stages might be due to a difference of stage rather than of species. 

 Possibly Mr. Theobald might be deceived in this way, but it is absurd 

 to imply that any real student of the matter does not know when a 

 larva is mature. 



Mr. Theobald deserves censure for his uncandid treatment of his 

 own faults. Other peoples synonyms are set forth in large type, but 

 his own are either ignored, or referred to in the text inconspicuously. 

 In the introduction he commends Professor Blanchard's book as "of 

 especial value for correcting errors in nomenclature;" but omits to 

 state that practically all the errors there corrected were perpetrated by 

 himself. In a monographic work of world-wide scope and general 

 distribution, where, unlike in a scientific journal, no reply is possible 

 to the same readers, this sort of thing is a rank injustice. It creates 

 the impression that other authors may make many faults, but not the 

 author of the monograph ! 



He does not hesitate to steal names. Numerous manuscript names 

 are published with descriptions, apparently without the consent of the 

 authors, as he frequently states that he does not know whether the 

 author in question has described the species or not. In the volume 

 before us we find a small inserted slip headed " Errata et Addenda," 

 on which we read oi Myzoinyia rossii GW^^ that it belongs to a dis- 

 tinct genus which is being describedhy Mr. Rothwell as Pseudoinyzoniyia. 

 The genus, of course, will now have to be credited to Theobald, and 

 Mr. Rothwell can only regret his misplaced confidence in having 

 mentioned his intention before publishing. 



, Mr. Theobald speaks unfavorably of genera founded on male 

 genitalia alone; justly, we think. He quotes Dr. Felt's work and 

 Dr. Dyar's on the subject, but in a note on page 12 makes the strange 



