240 THE entomologist's record. 



due, on the condition that the collection should be handed over to him 

 when the studies were completed. This was done, and to-day Edwards' 

 entire collection forms a part of Dr. Holland's own private collection, 

 which is now deposited in the museum of the Carnegie Institute, in 

 order that it may be made available with other collections for purposes 

 of study on the part of students. 



Whilst fully appreciating the public spirit of Dr. Holland, it does 

 seem pitiful to think that the best work ever done by an American 

 lepidopterist, was so ill-supported by the entomological public for 

 whom it was written, that the author not only had to give his life's 

 work as a labour of love, but also had to part with his collection, with 

 all its personal and sentimental ties, in order to give to an entomo- 

 logical world work that it could not even appreciate to the point of 

 paying for the actual mechanical labour expended by printers, 

 lithographers, etc., in its production, an entomological public that 

 took, in addition, without payment, the years of labour spent by the 

 author, in amassing material, breeding and curating the specimens, 

 describing their early stages, etc. Such work is sometimes called, as 

 we have called it above, a labour of love. This may be excellent 

 sentiment, but it appears to us also to be amazing nonsense in such 

 a case as this. A labour that ended in Edwards handing over his 

 collection under the conditions above described, must have sapped his 

 entomological life's blood. No wonder we read in the notices of his 

 death in the American magazines that, for the last 20 years of his life, 

 Edwards gave up the study of entomology, and took to the study of 

 Shakesperian literature. Dr. Holland's statement allows us now to 

 picture clearly what entomology lost by the failure of individual ento- 

 mologists to support the best work on lepidoptera that America ever 

 produced. Possibly, at least, two more volumes like the others might 

 have been produced, had they both been supported, and in their place 

 we have a wordy warfare as to how Shakespeare's name ought to be 

 spelt ! ! 



Dr. Sharp adds {Ent. ]\lo. Ma[i.) Laccohius scutellaris, Motsch., to 

 the British fauna. The first British example was taken by Mr. 

 Champion at Chobham, September 22nd, 1878, the second by Dr. 

 Sharp at Brockenhurst during the past summer. L. Hcntellaris, 

 Motsch., is most nearly allied to L. muiatus, Motsch., but is much 

 darker than any other Laccohius found in England. 



Mr. J. Edwards describes Drynps [Parniifi) annlicamts, as a species 

 new to Britain, and to science. It is said to be similar in appearance 

 to D. (jrheus, Er., but the species is really founded on genitalic differ- 

 ences when compared with those of D. onriculatiis, Fourc. The 

 specimens on which the species is founded, are noted as having been 

 taken at Horning, in May, 1888, when D. attriciilattis was also taken, 

 and was found again in the same locality during the present year. 



Mr. E. E. Bankes describes {Kvt. Mo. Ma;/.) the larva and pupa of 

 Evetria {Eetinia) sijlres(ra)ia, Curt., and gives some interesting notes 

 on the larval habits. 



Mr. Kenneth J. Morton adds Liinnnphilns fuscinerris, Zett., to the 

 British Trichopterous fauna, from examples taken near Castlebar (co. 

 Mayo) on June 17th last, by Mr. J. N. Halbert. 



Mr. Malloch adds three species of Diptera to the British list — (1) 

 Cnewacajitha muacaria, Fin., captured June 9th, 1906, at Bonhill, 

 Dumbarton. (2) Eccoptomera ornata, Lw., taken at Oxford, in July, 



