THE BRITISH CRYPTINiE. 



185 



that a superficial acquaintance with the Ichneumoninae is almost 

 useless, and that to make any real progress in the group it is neces- 

 sary to get to know the insects as individual species rather than by 

 means of tables or primary characters, and it is here that Mr. Morley's 

 careful descriptions should prove so useful. The Cryptinae appear to 

 us to be little or no better in this respect. The primary divisions 

 adopted by Mr. Morley are apparently most simple, and consist in 

 differences in the metathoracic ridges, but there are, in reality, many 

 exceptions, and the gradations from one form to another and the 

 individual variations render it no easy task to assign some of the 

 forms to the right group. Even primary characteristics in the 

 Ichneumonidae are so inconstant that we would suggest that it would 

 be an advantage in dealing with them, to place in many cases families, 

 genera, and species, more than once in the tables, and to give 

 secondary characters which can be used to assist, where the primary 

 fail. Mr. Morley's tables, which we believe are largely taken from 

 continental works, are mainly founded on structural characters, and 

 usually deal with both sexes together. Scientifically, this is correct 

 and desirable, but we suggest that, in future volumes, if room can be 

 found, it would be an advantage if alternative tables simply for 

 naming purposes were added when the scientific characters are likely to 

 prove difficult to beginners, or seem to require the destruction of the 

 specimen. Thus, a character like " pronotum centrally carinate and 

 laterally foveate," see p. 117, is scientifically of great value, but 

 practically difficult of application. A supplementary table would have 

 been useful here, and Mr. Morley knows his insects so well, that we 

 are sure he could supply one. Another slight disadvantage to the 

 student arises from Mr. Morley's objection to classifications dependent 

 on the presence or absence of wings. In this objection we entirely 

 agree with him, but, by abolishing the genus Aptesis, Forst, Mr. Morley 

 will probably agree that he has not made the mere task of identifica- 

 tion easier. Perhaps an opportunity of publishing easy alternate 

 tables, and some further illustrations of critical points, giving help to the 

 identification of the wingless and brachypterous forms, may arise here- 

 after. The little woodcuts dealing with some of these points are 

 capital. Wo hope that the subscriptions to the next volume will be 

 sufficient to enable us to have a few more, and also a few more tables 

 dealing with the sexes separately, like that of the $ s of Microcryptus. 

 It is impossible to give too much help in a really difficult group like 

 the lchneum.onidae. 



There is, in the preface, an explanation of the way in which the 

 descriptions of the insects contained in the text are drawn up. This 

 is very acceptable. In too many works of our acquaintance it is 

 impossible to say whether the description given is taken from an 

 earlier writer, or is a new one made tor the occasion. We apprehend 

 it is important for the student to know which it is. Mr. Morley, in 

 building up his descriptions from the earlier writers, and checking and 

 adding to them, undertook a laborious task, but the result should be, 

 and is, where we have checked it, complete and satisfactory in every 

 way, and, so far as we have been able to see, Mr. Morley has avoided 

 introducing different systems of nomenclature of the parts of insects 

 into his descriptions, a fault common, and in fact difficult to avoid, in 

 compilations, and particularly irritating in hymenoptera, in which 



