24 THE extojiologist's record. 



B euchre ihun< I des liin^si.icheu Bekhs, Theil iii., Bd. vi (1800), but his 

 new species are without description — "nomina nuda." He did, however, 

 pubHsh some descriptions of Ehopalocera in the MeDinires of the Moscow 

 Society (vols. 2 and 8). But very feAV books devoted to lepidoptera 

 seem to have been pubhshed in Eussia ; Eversmann's Fauna Lcindni)- 

 terohujica Ynhio-rralen^is (1844), and a little later several useful 

 contributions by Menetries are among the principal things. 



So little of importance was done in the south of Europe that we 

 need not dwell iipon it at all ; and as regards the study of the lepidop- 

 tera of the other continents, it will suffice to say that it was mostly 

 very unsystematic and fragmentary — chiefly lists of species obtained 

 during scientific voyages or travels, and worked out by eminent 

 entomologists such as Latreille, Boisduval, Guerin-Meneville, Klug, 

 Eschscholtz, &c. Boisduval, however, also published one or two 

 independent works, such as his Faitne Fntowolof/iqiie de Madapai^car 

 (1833), and (together with Leconte) the Histnire tiencrale ct Icono- 

 ifrajdiiipie den Bejiidnpteres, de V Aiiierique Septentrioncde (1829-42). 2'"^^.^' 

 Mention of the last work, which dealt with butterflies only, and is 

 very incomplete, reminds me that I must emphasise the singular dearth 

 of American work of any importance in this order during the early 

 part of the century — a fact all the more remarkable in view of the way 

 in wImcIi our friends across the Atlantic have overtaken and outstripped 

 us of late years. Excepting Say's American Entomohxiy (1817-28) and 

 Harris' Uejtort mi the Im^ecU of Massachusetts, dr. (1841), I know of 

 really nothing Avorth mentioning. Indeed, the great obstacles with 

 which lepidopterists like Packard had to contend in taking up the study 

 so recently as 40 years ago would hardly be realised apart from such 

 quotations as our editor gave us in Ento)n. Ihrord, x., p. 159. 



Side by side with the mass of descriptive and classificatory work 

 of which the above summary will give but a faint idea, we find at first 

 very little earnest biological research among lepidopterists. The 

 microscopical, anatomical, and physiological writings Avhich they had 

 received as a legacy from the 17th and 18th centuries were, to be sure, 

 meagre enough and in some cases crude enough ; but yet they should 

 have proved sufficient to stimulate further investigation. Though 

 mostly not strictly lepidopterological, the principal titles may be just 

 mentioned, in order to indicate their general nature ; Eedi, Ksperienze 

 Intorni) alia Generazione deijU Tnsetti (1668) ; Malpighi, Dissertatio de 

 Bowhijce (1669) ; Muralto, Anatmnia BedicuU (1682)"; Martinet, Bes- 

 piratio hisectorujii (1753) ; Eeyger, (jreneratio ApJtidnin (1754) ; Eeaumur, 

 Memoires, &c. (1734-42); Swammerdam, ]>i/belder Xatuure (1737-38); 

 De Geer, Mcmnires, &c. (1752-78) ; Lyonet, Traite Anatniiiique, &c. 

 (1762 — on (_'<)ssus) ; besides microscopical investigations by Leeu- 

 wenhoek, Gleichen and others. Perhaps the only lepidopterist of the 

 early nineteenth century who has achieved any lasting fame in follow- 

 ing up, and at the same time correcting, the work of his predecessors 

 was Herold, whose laborious studies on Pier is hrassicae (published in 

 Kntnirlduniisiiescirirhte, &c., 1815) enabled him to overthroAV the 

 primitive notion of the encasement of the imago within the larva. Of 

 Gaede's Beijtri'Kie :ur Anatomic der LiseJiten, published in the same year, 

 I know practically nothing ; he only used two lepidopterous species 

 for his investigations, Lasiueampa qiiercus and Arctia caia. Eamdohr, 

 one of the earliest writers on digestion in insects (1811), also studied 



