266 THE entomologist's record. 



interesting, on the other hand, is the matter in the new preface. Only 

 a few points can be briefly referred to in this notice. Attention is 

 called to the enormous advance made in the study of the Pala'arctic 

 fauna during the last 30 years, especially as regards the eastern parts 

 of the region; the Russian empire alone, during the last decade of the 

 nineteenth century, yielded a descriptive literature of new species which 

 one can scarcely hope to see reached again with regard to the 

 I'alajarctic fauna. It may be here mentioned that the actual numbers 

 of species indicated in the two catalogues are the following : 



1871. Part I, 2849 ; Part II, 3213 ; total 5062. 



1901. Part I, 4744 ; Part II, 4782 ; total 9526. 



For various reasons, however, the above figures can only be taken as 

 rough approximations ; not only because the addenda and corrigenda 

 have not been taken into account, but still more because various 

 questions of specific identity or the reverse have not yet been set at 

 rest ; there are also occasional irregularities in the consecution of the 

 numbering, i.e., numbers marked " vacat," no doubt by reason of 

 late corrections in the text. 



The great geographical difficulty has been in fixing the southern 

 boundary in the eastern part of the region, and of course a certain 

 number of forms characteristic of other regions have to find their way 

 into the catalogue. In general, the northern borders of Thibet proper 

 and the lower course of the river Hoang-Ho as far as the Chingan 

 Mountains form the southern boundaries. It was found impossible to 

 include the whole of Japan, as first intended, the southern island 

 containing such a large proportion of purely oriental forms. The 

 progress made in geographical research in the region may be roughly 

 indicated by the statement that the number of locality-abbreviations 

 given is exactly double that given in 1871 — 202 as against 101. 



The catalogue being intended as faunistic, purely biological litera- 

 ture has been largely disregarded, excepting where it throws direct 

 light upon the determination of the species catalogued. There is no 

 doubt much to be said for the omission of all references to varieties 

 produced in experimental biology, to teratological literature, to hybrids 

 which have not yet been observed in a state of nature, Sec; but it 

 occurs to the reviewer that there are also serious objections to their 

 omission, and that it would have been better to inchtde them — namely, 

 on the same grounds upon which extra-Pabearctic varieties of Pala3- 

 arctic species are included, that the nomenclatorial literature may be 

 complete for convenience of reference. If it be allowed, for example, 

 that the varietal names proposed by Standfuss, Fischer, and others 

 have any standing in nomenclature — and surely no one can deny it — 

 then it is important not to suppress them in a catalogue which is sure 

 to form the basis of future work, and to risk the creation of homonymy 

 by subsequent describers of new varieties. Moreover, that which can be 

 produced by tbe experimenter, whether in variation, hybridity, or even 

 monstrosities, can potentially, or at least theoretically, arise under 

 certain abnormal conditions apart from his intervention, and it may 

 safely be denied that any sharp lino of demarcation can be drawn 

 between the divers cases. The well-known hybrid iSnwrixt/iiis 

 oirUatHs-iiojudi is found duly included on p. 99. Are our authors sure 

 that that has ever been observed in a purely natural state ? Of 

 anatomical work, the investigation of the genitalia as a means of 



