48 THE entomologist's record. 



always be rectified by a diagram. However clever the draughtsman 

 may be he " sees " into his sketch a personal bias, and often omits 

 w^hat would modify the impression which his drawing produced, or 

 emphasises too greatly points with which he is obsessed at the time. 

 How can one get an idea of the use or purpose of the various struc- 

 tures by a "cut and spread" method nnlu ? While many of the small 

 appended structures can be pourtrayed better as to shape and origin 

 by this method, one must have a profile to see the relative positions 

 of parts when naturally arranged. Take the " f urea" for example. 

 One can get no idea what the use of this structure is in K. atitiDiinaria 

 from plate iv., one can only see the shape, pomts of origin and 

 relation to the harpes (harpagones). But if one looks at the profile 

 views, say on plate v., attached to Mr. Bethune-Baker's paper, one can 

 at once see how strongly the inference is that the Furca is a support 

 to the penis. We want profiles, we want photographs, and we want 

 diagrams, but the diagram must be what it is in all branches of science, 

 a biassed illustration of particular points, either as to shape or i-elative 

 position, to elucidate points of study, not to be the final result of the 

 study. 



The author dealing with the ^ and $ structures naturally gives 

 us the classificatory results to which they appear to him to point, 

 without, we imagine, in any way wishing to controvert the principle 

 so well expressed by our late Editor, when he wrote in 1909 {Ent. 

 Record, vol. xxi., p. 92), "Of course a satisfactory classification must 

 take account of all characters, not only of one instar, but throughout 

 the whole life cycle. These appendages, however, present nearly as 

 large a group of characters as those usuallj' used in making classifi- 

 cations .... so that the addition to the usual material for 

 classification of a knowledge of these organs is rather doubling our 

 resources than adding one item to them." 



When one comes to consider the vast amount of patient work in- 

 volved, the intricate care in manipulation to secure that the prepara- 

 tions may be readily comparable, and the time which all this involves, 

 one can scarcely express sufficiently the admiration felt. 



It can be truly said of this work that it is another " land-mark in 

 the advance of a more complete knowledge of our British Lepidoptera," 

 and as the British fauna, although limited in species, is typical of 

 almost all the Paljearctic genera, these new facts accumulated and 

 classified, must have an influence far greater than in the area which 

 the book nominally deals with. 



We had almost forgotten that an early announcement of the 

 volume coupled the name of one of our colleagues, the Rev. C. R. N. 

 Burrows, with that of the author. It may be said that it was Mr. 

 Burrows' own wish that his name should not appear on the title-page 

 Avith that of the titular author, but we know that the investigation has 

 been a joint one. Independent preparations have been made with 

 every species, subsequent comparisons always carried out, with further 

 investigation and comparison if thought necessary, and discussion on 

 every point of apparent divergence. In fact, Mr. Burrows has equally 

 shared with Mr. Pierce the work of inAestigation, but the author has 

 made himself alone responsible for the facts and opinions as they 

 are put before the public. — H.J.T. 



