REPORTS OF ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETIES. 209 



present date), a most lamentable lack of definite information, which 

 effectually prevents many records being either of use or interest ; and 

 unless records are of use or interest, they surely cease to be records at 

 all. To make a long story short I will try to show what I am driving 

 at, by illustrating from the magazines published since the year 1890 

 what I mean. I take one of these volumes haphazard — I open it at 

 the first page of its Societies' Reports : 



"Mr. exhibited for Mr. of , and read notes on Arctia 



lubricipeda var. radiata, which had been bred by Mr. this year." 



"Mr. exhibited dark varieties of Acronicta leporina, bred by Mr. 



, also a white variety of Triphaena pronuba, taken at , by 



Mr. — ." 



" Mr. exhibited a monstrosity of Abraxas grossulariata." 



"Mr. ■ — exhibited a series of striking varieties of Satyrut hyperanthus, 



bred from ova laid by a female taken in the New Forest — " 



and so on. These are not striking instances, for I have honestly 

 quoted from the report of the first society which I dropped upon. One 

 asks : What good do these records do ? What were the peculiarities 

 of the specimens exhibited ? Where were they taken ? When ? How? 



Without details one only learns that Mr. had bred Arctia 



lubricipeda var. radiata, that there is a dark (how dark ?) aberration 

 of Acronicta leporina, and a white ab. of T. pronuba. What was 

 the nature of the monstrosity exhibited we are left to guess ; and we 



learn that Mr. has bred Satyrus hyperanthus, and that this 



species occurs in the New Forest and is liable to variation. In these 

 cases it is not fair to blame either the secretaries, who can only forward 

 such information as they receive, or the magazines, who, pledged to 

 publish, must publish, what they receive. 



To pass on to paragraphs as to captures. Here is one : — 



" Gxophria rubricollis in June. — A friend took this insect in June last in 

 Somersetshire. Is not this early in the season ? I have never myself taken this 

 moth, but relatives used to take it in Gloucestershire in August. I see Newman 

 gives August as the time of its appearance." 



Now here was an opportunity of making two points — localities, 

 which would be interesting, and dates, perhaps more so. Unfortunately 

 both June and August comprise four weeks, a long period in our brief 

 summer, with only an equal period between, and the record is of no 

 use to me. And so on. A correspondent has had a month's collecting, 

 he naturally does not always collect in one spot. The record may 

 run: "Last July" — or oftener "from the middle of July to the 



middle of August — I spent at ■" I took "so and so." 



Here would be a consolation, if one always felt sure that the insects 

 recorded came from one locality. But, alas, I have recently read some 

 collectors' notes w T ho evidently travelled about, yet do not say where, 

 when, or how their captures were made. 



I say we must not blame the secretaries, or the editors, but 

 ourselves. Every record, every note, ought surely to carry some 

 information with it, as I should put it something which would allow 

 it to be placed in my " Index." It is wonderfully interesting to hear 

 or read that a brother entomologist has taken Pieris brassicae, Manduca 

 atropos, Laphygma exigua, or even Tkalpochares paula, but it is not of 

 lasting interest unless we know either when, where, how, or at 

 least something more about it. In notes recording the rearing of 

 species, surely it would be of interest to notice the oval period, the 



