180 THE entomologist's record. 



flies," " Orfchoptera," " Gall Insects," &c. The above " Catalog'ue" is 

 in no way behind in bulk, for it extends to no less than 1388 pages of 

 closely printed matter, with 590 figures of the more important species, 

 and many diagrams of structural details where required. 2535 species 

 (exclusive of the Ehynchophora) are known to occur Avithin the 

 confines of the State, and nearly 800 other species are indicated as 

 likely to be met with when a more thorough survey can be undertaken. 

 The term " Catalogue " is really a misnomer, for the book is a treatise 

 which must be of value for many years to come. There is a capital 

 introduction with sections on " The Relation of a Beetle to other 

 Animals," " The External Anatomy of a Beetle," " The Relations of 

 the Beetle to other Insects," and on " Classification." The work 

 concludes with a glossary of terms and an Index of Families and 

 Genera only. We do like, in all works of any pretention to compre- 

 hensiveness, to have an index of specific names and synonyms ; to omit 

 this in a work of value from a natural history point of view, seems, to 

 use a common expression, to be " spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of 

 tar." We congratulate Professor Blatchley on the general arrange- 

 ment of the matter, which affords the student, by detailed keys and 

 varied type, every facility for ready and easy consultation. 



A long letter on " the S. Kensington site " from Sir Norman 

 Lockyer was published in The Tunes of May 80th, in which he 

 complains that " the main question is being lost in the various side 

 issues and details now being discussed." By the main question, 

 judging by a later paragraph in his letter, he appears to mean the 

 site for the buildings of the Science Museum, but surely this is the 

 one question discussed throughout the Tunes correspondence from 

 every point of view. Every one is agreed as to the need of a Science 

 Museum, and of one that has room for expansion, and further, every 

 one feels that the ideal site for it would be, if possible, at South 

 Kensington, but the answer to the suggestion that this is possible is 

 supplied by Sir Normaii Lockyer himself in his opening sentence : 

 " Practically the whole of the land has been allocated." Surely, in 

 common honesty, this should be a sufficient reply, but if any further 

 reason be needed it is supplied by the fact that the land so allocated 

 is already occupied by a very valuable building, which, if not actually 

 demolished, must at last be alienated from the purpose for which 

 it was originally constructed in a very special manner. 



Sir Norman Lockyer informs the public that he pointed this fact 

 out some four years ago, but not, it would seem, with a view to 

 explaining to the Commissioners the impossibility of employing this 

 site for the Science Museum ; on the contrary, it is almost impossible 

 to avoid the conclusion that he suggested the contemplated act of 

 spoliation, and he seems to suppose that this suggestion was in some 

 way less reprehensible because it was made in 1907 than it would 

 have been in 1909 or 1911. 



It is generally admitted that in private life the morality of a 

 "theft" is not affected by the amount stolen (unless altogether 

 negligeable), but with regard to an "act of spoliation " in public life 

 (a very different matter it would seem). Sir Norman Lockyer is 

 evidently anxious, in defence of the authorities concerned, to minimise 

 the amount as far as possible, for he goes back to the old fiction about 

 the "original fence," implying that there had been a line of delimi- 



