1003.] 257 



JlerieitJ. 



"A List of North American Lepidoptera and Key to the Literature 

 OF THIS Order of Insects. By Harrison C. Dyar, P1..D., Custodian of Lepid- 

 optera, United States National Museun., assisted by C. H. Fernald, Ph.D., the late 

 Kev George D. Hulst, and August Busck. Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus.. No. 52. 

 Washington: Government Printing Office. 1902." (8vo,pp.xix + 723. Speeies6622). 

 This List supplies a need which has been greatly felt by all students of the 

 Lepidoptera of North America. As Staudinger and Wocke's Catalog has done more 

 than any other work in aiding and regulating the study of our European forms, so 

 this List, whicii is something more than an equivalent for it in America, cannot fail 

 to have at least as great effect upon the progress of Entomology across the Atlantic. 

 When we say that it is something more than a mere equivalent, we refer to the 

 manner in which it is brought out, the excellent printing and ample spacing, the 

 well-arranged and quickly visible index, the care with which erroneously spelt 

 names are mentioned i.i the synonymy of the species rather than being allowed to 

 drift at the disposal of future writers, and especially to the great contrast in favour 

 of the American method which is to be found in the printing under each generic 

 name the principal synonyms which may be regarded as wholly or partly its equiva- 

 lents, and the citation under families of the monograph relied upon for their 

 classification and synonymy. 



Here indeed is a very distinct improvement upon Staudinger's Catalog, and a 

 welcome return to the system adopted by Stephens and Stainton. There can in 

 future be little excuse for the resuscitation of superseded nomenclature, except for 

 good cause shown, if further evidence should become from time to time available. 



It ie satisfactory to observe that the obvious intention of the authors throughout 

 has been faithfullv to regard the Law of Priority, and although some individuality 

 is to be recognised in the methods adopted by the compilers of different portions 

 of the List, the truth seems to be now recognised that no finality is to be obtained 

 by any other method than that of crediting to each author in order of precedence 

 whatever original work he can be shown to have achieved. It is greatly to be hoped 

 that the excellent example set in this respect will be largely and consistently followed 

 by future workers in all branches of Natural Science. The authors are to be con- 

 gratulated that the results arrived at in these respects have not involved the amount 

 of labour which would undoubtedly be required on the part of any one dealing with 

 the far more extensive literature of Europe on these subjects, and their success 

 emphasises the regret that must now be felt that none of the older European 

 authors had the courage to attempt a complete revision at a date when priority of 

 nomenclature could have been more easily established before the majority of the old 

 types had been lost or dispersed. 



Some apparent inconsistencies to be found in this List are attributable to the 

 different methods employed by each individual compiler in fixing the types of 

 certain genera. One system which has been somewhat largely used in the past has 

 been to regard the first of the species enumerated under any generic name as the 

 type of the genus. I am unable to say how far this has been the case, if at all, in 

 the earlier parts of the work, but in that part attributed to Dr. Fernald, or in which 

 he has been followed by Dr. Dyar, it has evidently been adopted. In spite of the 



