THE LEPIDOPTEROLOGICAL BOOKS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. 23 



as they served a useful purpose in the diffusion of the knowledge of the 

 lepidoptera, although they do not mark any new departure in method. 

 In England oiir two great writers following Haworth were Curtis 

 and Stephens, but neither of them confined his attention to the 

 lepidoptera ; both did some good work in classification, and one of 

 Stephens' works — the " Haustellata " portion of his lllK^tratinns 

 (4 vols., 1827-85) — comes legitimately within the scope of our article ; 

 it formed to a large extent the basis of Westwood's work on the order, 

 and of Wood's useful Indc.v KiitiDiinloiiiciis (1888-89), and, in fact, was 

 one of the principal authorities in this country until the appearance of 

 Stainton's Maiutal. 



In France, Latreille and Godarfc's important contributions to the 

 Kncijcloprdie M/'t/indiqttc (1819-28), the Histoirc XoturcUc dcs Lt'jndopteren 

 of Godart and Duponchel (1821-42), De Villiers and Guenee's Tableaux 

 SijiKiptiijKi's (1885), and a httle later (1886, 1852-57, 1875) Boisduval 

 and Guenee's Speeii's (ihirral, were the chief works produced ; but some 

 of the same authors (Boisduval, Duponchel and Guenee) also brought 

 out some systematic catalogues in which various new genera were 

 proposed, and new arrangements made ; unfortunately they saw fit to 

 neglect the work of Hiibner, and have burdened generic nomenclature 

 with a great number of synonyms. 



In Germany, Ochsenheimer and Treitschke were almost universally 

 followed until Herrich-Schaft'er and Speyer began their studies ; these 

 writers and Lederer began to use structural characters in their 

 determination of genera much more largely than their predecessors had 

 done, and may be said to have brought lepidopterology up to the level 

 of the other branches of entomology, though there was still wanting 

 the impulse of Darwinism, and of the workers of his school to carry it 

 to any very high position as a science. Lederer's classification — 

 undoubtedly good in many respects — has obtained far wider currency 

 than it deserves through having been that chosen by Dr. Staudinger 

 for the arrangement of his collection and his ( 'atahnj. Herrich- Schaft'er's 

 latest work, as given to us in his Saniiiihiiiii Aiisscn'iiroiidischef 

 Srluinitcdiniic (1850-69), depends largely upon neuration, andhasformed 

 to a great extent the basis of the work of Meyrick and Hampson. 



At the same period German lepidopterists were still busy with 

 iconographic works, some of them of a very high order of merit, and 

 often incidentally giving valuable help in the elucidation of life-histories, 

 etc. Hiibner's Saunidiin;/, his K.nit. SrJniu'tt. and Ziitriir/e, were all 

 continued after his death (in 1826) by Geyer, and valuable text and 

 supplements were added by Fischer von Roslerstamm (1884-43) and 

 llerrich-Schiiffer (1845-56). Freyer's two works, the small Bcitriuje 

 (1828-30), and the much more extended Xciicrr I'x'itiitijr (1833-58) also 

 deserve a Avord of mention. 



Scandinavia in the earlier part of the present century scarcely seems 

 to have maintained the promnient position which it had occupied in 

 the latter part of the eighteenth ; perhaps the principal luminary of the 

 time was Dalman, whose Forxi'iJ.- till Si/stcmatisl- rjipstiillni)/;/ at .SVcr/V/cs 

 J\i'irilar (J'rt. Air. JlajulL, xxxvii., 1816) has given us some generic 

 names which are now current. In Russia at the beginning of the 

 century Boeber seems to have collected diligently but published little ; 

 some of his ncAvly-discovered species were communicated to Fabricius 

 and Esper, and he also contributed lists of his captures to Georgi's 



