92 THE entomologist's record. 



it is also erroneous to call these organs one character. They manifest 

 a multitude of characters ; they present the structures, often most 

 complicated and elaborate, of two most important segments of the 

 insect's body. Of course, a satisfactory classification must take account 

 of all characters, not only of one instar, but throughout the whole life 

 cycle. These appendages, however, present nearly as large a group of 

 characters as those usually used in making classifications, most system- 

 atists, probably from the necessary limitations to human mental 

 contents, actually depending on comparatively few characters, so 

 that the addition to the usual material for classification of a knowledge 

 of these organs is rather doubling our resources than adding merely 

 one item to them. 



We are told that " classification " in this volume is " largely 

 based on the genital organs," and the main descriptive portion 

 of the work is headed " Classification of the Nortuidae based 

 on the structure of the male genitalia." We are somewhat disappointed 

 to find that Mr. Pierce does not seem to have had always courage to 

 fully carry out the promise of these statements. We are told for 

 instance that the Bryophiliilae are strongly generic, this probably 

 means that it forms a well-defined and separable group. Yet we find 

 Mama orinn placed as if it belonged to them. This, of course, the 

 author does not mean, and must be regarded as an error of manner 

 rather than matter, yet it is frequent as we go on, and not always 

 easily recognisable. On the other hand we welcome the placing of 

 Deiiias rnriili with the ('uniato/i/ioridac : D. '•nri/li, as the egg and other 

 stages suggest stronglj', is not a Cymatophorid, but the male append- 

 ages strongly suggest that it is, and it is most desirable that such a 

 hint concerning a species of doubtful position should be emphasised. 

 LifiiiKtri is placed as an Acmni/rta, a separate genus being suggested for 

 it. The genitalia, however, seem to provide the last straw, if one were 

 wanting, to separate it from the Acronyctas altogether. We are 

 frequently told that the genitalia say so and so, but the author will 

 follow the sequence of the list. We miss any hint which the appendages 

 bear out strona'ly, that Mainestra [albicolon, vionoiihjpJui) are closely 

 related to Leucama, the latter being, in truth, Mamestras, coloured to 

 suit their environment and habits. We should like also to have had 

 Mr. Pierce's opinion as to whether the appendages suggest any relation- 

 ship between the Acronyctas and Xanthias. We think much of this 

 reticence, and especially the absence of a complete recasting of the list 

 in some particulars, is due to a modesty that such an authority on the 

 subject as Mr. Pierce, ought to be able to lay aside. His figures show- 

 that Lciicania (central mass), Apaiiiea, Xi/lojihasia, and yjanu'stra, are 

 very closely related, to the exclusion of XoHai/iia and some others 

 which are led up to by way of Uj/dmecia. Nnnanria certainly is not 

 verv near to Aiirotis, but it is nearer than is Leiicania : these relation - 

 ships are not in accord with Mr. Tutt's forecasts in lUit. Xoctnac, iv., 

 p. XXV. In following out any such search for relationships, Mr. Pierce 

 does not give us any clear lead, and it is more difficult to gather his 

 actual opinion from the text, than to form one's own from the figures. 

 One rather dislikes this, since Mr. Pierce's experience with the specimens 

 must make comparatively simple to him what is more or less of a 

 puzzle to his readers. One would have liked his discussion of such 

 conclusions as we find in Tutt's ilritis/i Nnctnae, \o\. iv., p. xxviii, 



