192 THE entomologist's record. 



This is, in one respect, unfortunate, for Dr. Chapman and Mr. 

 Bacot have already shown {A Nat. Hist. Brit. Lep., vol. v.) that, whilst 

 the reduction of the wing-area, by the formation of the clefts, has, in 

 some instances, apparently reduced to a common type of neuration 

 species that show amazing structural uift'erences in the larval and 

 pupal characters, the latter provide a much more abundant supply of 

 useful characters for the classification and grouping of the species, than 

 the imagines, a fact that Mr. Fletcher has been obliged largely to 

 ignore in his grouping. Falling back mainly on neuration and 

 the structure of the imaginal palpi for his characters, we find him 

 following largely Mr. Meja'ick's grouping, already criticised somewhat 

 adversely, owing to its entire omission of any consideration of the 

 characters derived from the early stages, which do not support the 

 imaginal indications. 



In the same manner Mr. Fletcher largely follows Mr. Meyrick's 

 names, even when, apparently, proved erroneous, e.g., Alucita, Linn.= 

 Pterophorus, de Geer, both species having the same type, pentadacti/la. 

 Does Mr. Fletcher doubt the facts published concerning these, or does 

 he think the facts of no importance ? If not, was not the name 

 Pteropliorus still-born, and is it wise to continue it? Similarly 

 Trichoptiliis was founded for a group of North American species which 

 we considered not quite the same as the European (and presumably 

 the Asiatic) allies. Is Mr. Fletcher satisfied that the Asiatic and 

 American species cited under the name Trichoptilus are identical 

 generically? We ask in all ignorance, it w^as our opinion that they 

 were not, and Walsingham and Durrant have accepted our view of the 

 matter. 



Apart from these criticisms, which must be considered as largely 

 representing the personal equation, and which will come straight when 

 Mr. Fletcher applies close and searching criticism to the facts, we have 

 nothing but praise for Mr. Fletcher's work, splendidly helped by his 

 excellent illustrations. We look forw^ard now to be in the position of 

 being able to hand over the salvation of our " Plume " soul to Mr. 

 Fletcher. We mirst try to complete our other volume on the British 

 species, just to give the entomological world, as it were, all that has 

 been collected together on the British species of these interesting 

 insects, then w-e can safely wait till Mr. Fletcher has settled down at 

 home with time to work over again the life-histories of all our British 

 species, and his accumulated foreign material, preserved larvae, pupal 

 skins, etc., and trust him to bring all that is known of the group into 

 something like order, and make a reputation as the one man in the 

 world who knows something of the plumes of the world. But we 

 must have the characters of the early stages considered before this will 

 be fully conceded. Mr. Fletcher is a born naturalist, and it it as a 

 naturalist and not as a mere museum worker that his work must be j udged. 



At last, after almost two years' waiting, The Survey mid Becord of 

 Woolwich and West Kent has been published. It contains "descriptions 

 and records of the Geology, Botany, Zoology, Archaeology, and 

 Industries of the district, with a brief Photographic Commentary," 

 but of these the Botany and Zoology comprise 410 of the 496 pages, 

 so that it will be w^ell-understood that the groups, other than the tAVO 

 last-named, are somewhat meagre. The Zoology, of the section of 

 which Mr. J. W. Tutt was Chairman, and Mr. H. J. Turner, Secretary, 

 occupies from p. 231 to p. 440, and comprises lists of the local Mammals, 



