166 THE entomologist's eecord. 



is the fault of the publishers. Altogether, some 2319 species are 

 recorded from Surrey. 



We would recommend our students of the British Odonata to obtain 

 from the library of one of the Societies to which they belong (or else- 

 where) Neelham's " Genealogic study of dragonfly wing venation," 

 published in the Prnceedini/s of the Llnited States National Muxeam,* 

 xxvi., pp. 703-764, as it is a paper worthy of the most serious study. We 

 have heard collectors complain that there is so very little to do in collect- 

 ing and studying the British dragonflies (the total number of something 

 just over three dozen being a little more than half the number of 

 British butterflies and only about one-sixtieth of the British moths) 

 and sighing for more worlds to conquer, that we have long expected 

 some one of our Britishers would have given us a study on the 

 lines that Mr, i\eedham has apparently worked to such good purpose ; 

 now that we have his results some suggestions as to the more difficult 

 points in the classification of the Odonata should be forthcoming. 



Lameere publishes [Ann. de la Sac. Ent. Behj., xlvii., pp. 155 et 

 seq.) a fresh critical study entitled "Nouvelles notes pour la classifica- 

 tion des Coleopteres." Our I^ritish coleopterists appear just at present 

 to leave all consideration of the classification of the order to their 

 continental confreres, Sharp being the last, we believe, who has dealt 

 with the subject in this country. Where are our thinking coleop- 

 terists '? Cannot one of them give us a constructive critique of 

 Lameere's views ? 



We are in receipt of Part II of A Catalogue of the Lepidoptera of 

 Northumberland and Durham, by John E. Robson, F.E.S. This second 

 part includes the superfamily Geometrides, and follows the same 

 excellent lines as Part I. The author's intimate knowledge of the lepi- 

 dopterists of these counties for the last 60 years or more, his close 

 friendship with Sang and Gardner, and his wider experience as editor 

 of T/ic Young Xaturalist for many years, have placed him in an excep- 

 tionally strong position for doing the work. He has followed Stainton 

 in his arrangement, an arrangement which, until we have a really 

 authoritative British Catalogue, appears to be as good as any other, 

 although we have to confess that we are extremely puzzled by the 

 separation of Acidalia virynlaria and A. incanata (unless the latter be 

 the insect we have known as promntata and maryine punctata), and by 

 the inclusion of Acidalia osseata, which one supposes must be the 

 insect so long known as interjectaria. In cases like this, one would 

 have preferred that the synonymy should have been put right, so that 

 there should have been no doubt as to the species. On the other 

 hand, we are glad to see that Mr. Robson stands out for the distinct- 

 ness of Eupithecia innotata and E.fraxinata, so dissimilar in their larval 

 habits, yet so alike in the appearance of the imagines. When one 

 considers what labour is entailed in the compilation of such a list, of 

 what value it is to outsiders, and how little glory it can possibly bring 

 the author, one is filled with contempt for those collectors to whom 

 Mr. Robson says that he applied for, but who refused him, information 

 with regard to some of their reported captures. That such individuals 

 are still in our ranks is rather a matter for sorrow than anger ; aber- 

 rations of this class are distinctly rare, we should like to have the 



* Published at the Government Printing Office, Washington, U.S.A. 



