266 THE entomologist's KECORt). 



of diction that those responsible will surely hardly care to defend. As 

 opposed to this, on p. 14, the specific and generic names both get 

 provided with capital initial letters, whilst the names themselves ni 

 the titles of the papers, rarel}' appear to agree with the notes about 

 those papers in the Proceedings, e.i/., the " Vanessa Urticae'' paper on 

 p. 13, is referred to throughout in the Proceedings, p. 5, as " A</lais 

 tirticae;" the ^^ Gnophos Obscurata,'' paper on p. 14, is referred to on 

 p. 6 as " Sciadio)i obsciirana ; " the " Grapta c-album " discussion on 

 p. 14, becomes on p. 7 Polyi/onia c-alhum, etc. One might expect 

 some uniformity, but we find " Lycaena aeAjon" and " Polyomtiiatm 

 aeyon," on the same page (12). On p. 7 again, we find " Trochilinm 

 taba7iifnriiiis," on p. 8, " Sesia tabanifurDus," evidently the same species, 

 and on p. 4 the heading '^ Zyi/aenidae," and then read in the 

 following paragraph of '' Anthrocera viinus," a six-spotted " Zyyaeiia," 

 ''A. jilipendulae,'" etc. We do not know who is responsible for 

 " Alucita " (jraphodactyla, on pp. 60 and 10, surely (/rap/iodartyla 

 cannot be Alucita without going baci\ to Linne. It is an Adhinia, 

 belonging to the Stenoptiliines, on the Plaptyptiliid side of the plume 

 stirps, not even an Alucitine plume, let alone an '^Alucita." Similarly, 

 brachydactylns (p. 4) is called a '' Pteropho7us ;" surely these things 

 should be dead before a volume claiming a scientific position is given 

 to the public. We may be told that the genera are in a state of flux ; 

 this may be so, but out of the flux there is surely no reason why, at 

 least, some uniform method should not be adopted in the same book 

 and on the same page. No doubt attention only wants to be called to 

 this for the matter to be put right, but a volume that succeeds in its 

 essentials should not be allowed to fail for want of attention to details. 

 We write this with a light heart, not knowing who the members of 

 the press committee are, or whether each member is responsible for his 

 own paper, but, at any rate, by the tune the next volume is issued, we 

 trust that someone will be found to give the necessary attention to the 

 matter. We wish to withdraw from these remarks, Mr. Prout's paper 

 above referred to, which is, contrary to the rest of the contents, 

 excellently edited throughout. 



Another popular book entitled Ihitterjiies and Moths of the United 

 Ivinydom, by Dr. W. Egmont Kirby, published by George Routledge 

 and Sons, Ltd., London, has been forwarded to us for notice. It is 

 illustrated by a large number of coloured plates, done by the three- 

 colour process, the drawing of many flgures of which is exceedingly 

 poor. So unsatisfactory are some of the figures, that we had to turn 

 to the index to see what they were meant to represent. We doubt if 

 anyone could possibly guess what pi. xxxiv., figs. 4 and 17, xxxv., 

 fig. 7, xxxvi., figs. 2 and 14, xxxviii., fig. 21, xli., fig. 16, and many 

 others were intended to be, particularly if tnken from their surroundings 

 and examined separately. We were specially attracted to pi. Ixvi., fig. 9, 

 as something we could not decipher, and discovered that there was not 

 a single species named correctly on the Avhole of the plate ; even of 

 those that could be made out, wrong names appear to have been 

 applied to every figure. The figures of the plumes on pi. Ixvii., are 

 probably as unsatisfactory as anything in the volume. In the course of 

 our study of this lovely order, we have never seen any plumes quite 

 like those figured, and that which the explanation says refers to penta- 

 ductj/la, can only be intended as an amazing caricature of this common, 



I 



