164 THE entomologist's RECORD. 



completed, and it goes without saying that it is replete with much 

 varied information. The facts gathered together about the larval 

 habits of the species dealt with, to say nothing of many others that 

 do not come within the ordinary range of the work, are most useful 

 to all field-workers. The " Chrysophanid," or, as I should say, the 

 Heodid, caterpillars, appear to be very restricted in the choice of their 

 pabulum, though, in America, there are more than one species that 

 depart from the European restriction, for, besides epixantlte, mentioned by 

 Tutt as feeding on cranberry, dorcas makes another departure feeding 

 on Dafiifjhnra fruticuHa. We notice six genera suggested, some new with 

 the type species merely indicated, r/5., Vacciniina optilete, Cijaniris semi- 

 argus, AlhuUna pJwretes, Latiurina orbit aliis, Agriades coridon, Polyom- 

 matiis icaruH, When a genus is created we think it should be definitely 

 described, this precedent scarcely seems in keeping with the rest of the 

 book, so particular as to facts and accurate in details. We notice 

 Dr. Chapman {antea, p. 101) has a pregnant sentence, he says in some 

 remarks about the male appendages of the Plebeiids, " The form of 

 the clasps and dorsal processes define the group very distinctly from 

 any other, but are also very slightly different in different species, yet 

 almost always sufficiently to afford specific characters. But their 

 failure to afi'ord characters to define genera is remarkable, in view of their 

 affording such good tribal and specific characters. This faihire is noted 

 specially in the case of the genus PlebeiuR." The doctor then goes on 

 to indicate some possible classification on the form of the fedoeagus. 

 The failure referred to is, in our opinion, very definite indeed, and 

 with our experience of the genitalia, not forgetting their weaker 

 points, we think it indicates conclusively that the genus Plebeius 

 (including as it does the vast majority of the Palfearctic blues) forms 

 one good thoroughly homogeneous genus, and that it ought not to be 

 subdivided at the present time. Had the author of the genera named 

 had time to sit down to write an exact diagnosis of each genus from 

 the perfect insect, he might have found he had written the same 

 diagnosis over and over again, with the result that the genera would 

 have not been created. We will deal with all adverse (if I must use 

 the word) criticism at once, for the volume is really a monument of 

 hard thinking and hard working out, but we must refer to the 

 multitudinous naming of aberrations, personally, I should never name 

 anything that was not a local race, these aberrations are purely 

 individual — may even not be naet with again — what is the object of a 

 name for them ? Are they to be catalogued, in say Staudinger's next 

 " Catalog " ? if so, it will reach many volumes, and the future student 

 will have his labour increased enormously. To our mind, the naming 

 of such specimens answers no scientific purpose, and we heartily wish 

 the author could look at the matter from our point of view. 



There is another thing that we think would save our Editor a large 

 amount of labour. Would it not be possible to amalgamate the 

 " Time of appearance" with the "Localities" and "Distribution." It 

 would answer the same purpose and save the author the writing twice 

 over much of the same material ? 



The amount of time spent in hunting up the original publications 

 must have been very great. The result is that we see some old friends 

 with new names ; we shall, no doubt, get accustomed to them in time, 

 and without doubt it is labour well spent. We scarcely expected to have 



