1900.] 45 



captures with corlaintj, and they have for tlio most part been drawn from fresh 

 examples. Those for the /EsohnincB are practically perfect (save for ./?. isonceles, 

 for which only old materials were available). A very trifling outlay would have 

 still further enhanced their value. The slden of the thorax should have been figured 

 for Sympetrum, /Eschna, Agrion, &o., and figures sliould also have been given for the 

 dimorphic females of Ischiiura, and for the whitish form (often the most common) 

 of Platycnemis. One plate, that devoted to the two species of Ischnura, is in- 

 different : the pale blue (or bluish-white) annulus near the apes of the abdomen 

 (differing in position according to the species), so conspicuous in the living insect, is 

 barely discernible. The figure of the female of Oxygastra Curtisi seems to liava 

 been taken from a very lightly-coloured individual. 



The author admits 39 or 40 British species (he seems to waver in the case of S. 

 striolatum and 5'. vuli/atam), wliereas seven others are alluded to as " Reputed 

 Britisli." Some of these latter probably got into our lists through absence of 

 locality labels ; but others have certainly occurred here in one or more specimens 

 (and still more are likely to do so), and it is difScult to draw tlae line between the 

 rights of such species as -S. Fonscolomhii, of which a large migratory swarm occurred 

 a few years ago, and S. meridionale, known only by one or two very old specimens, 

 but which may have formed part of a swarm. 



The writer of this notice calls attention to the fact that the example of " Sym- 

 petrum trulgatum " from Desvignes' collection, cf. p. 72, is identical with that of S. 

 Fonscolombii mentioned at p. 71, and that the error was corrected in Ent. Mo. Mag., 

 XX, p. 253. 



The book has been well seen through the press, and the few errors are mainly 

 corrected at pp. 332^333. though some, mostly topographical, remain. 



A short chapter on " Preparation " concludes the work. In this we rejoice to 

 see that the author recommends_^a^ setting boards with square grooves. 



We have made no allusion to the sequence adopted for the species. It is not 

 that which we would now follow, but this is a matter of comparatively small im- 

 portance. 



"We congratulate Mr. Lucas on having produced a useful work that we hope 

 will soon require a second edition. It does not obviate the necessity for a small 

 scientific " Synopsis," nor would the one in any way clash with the other. — 

 E. McLachlan. 



The Hymenoptera of Suffolk. Part i, Aculeata : by Claude Moeley, 

 F.E.S. With Map. 8vo, pp. 22. Plymouth : J. H. Keys. 1899. 



Mr. Morley has published under the above title an excellent list of the Suffolk 

 Aculeata. Suffolk as a county is always interesting in the eyes of Hymenopterists, 

 as the collecting ground of the Rev. W. Kirby and the few Entomologists who 

 assisted him in gathering materials for his Monograph of the British Bees. We 

 have to thank the Rev. E. N. Bloomfield, as we are told in the first few lines of the 

 preface, for much of the labour involved in the compilation of this list, and no doubt 

 for its original conception. A record of a little more than two-thirds of the entire 

 number of species known to inhabit the United Kingdom is undoubtedly good for 

 one county, and yet among the rarer species, besides those predicted by the author, 

 there are probably several which will be found some day. Among the ants Ponera 



