liEPIDOPTEROLOGY. 



Ill 



D.R. (heterozygote) and the other a recessive the result should be 50% 

 ■of each form. Of course none of these breeding results afford any 

 •direct evidence for or against the Mendelian Theory of Heredity, as 

 the results are equally explicable according to the Galtonian Theory in 

 the case of segregating characters. Miss Miller's brood is, however, a 

 further addition to the evidence already large, which suggests an 

 undue preponderance of dominant recessives (heterozygotes) among 

 wild moths which exhibit melanism, a feature of the evidence which 

 I do not recollect ever to have heard explained by any of the supporters 

 of the Mendelian Theory of Heredity. The details of emergency while 

 affording, interesting and valuable data for later statistical work, which 

 will no doubt be undertaken in Entomology as in other branches of 

 science, do not suggest anv obvious comment as they stand. — A. 

 Bacot (F.E.S.).] 



Lepidopterology.' 



By Dr. T. A. CHAPMAN, F.Z.S. 



This thick and sumptuous volume is not second to any of its 

 predecessors ; it is not first only in-so-far that each Fascicule has 

 different interests to the others, and so it is impossible to compare 

 them. There are 355 pages of text, 64 coloured plates, and 69 of 

 reproductions of photographs. 



The preface is devoted to the subject of " No description valid 

 without a figure." It was obvious at the Oxford Congress that it is 

 no use kicking against the pricks, and just as Mendel's discoveries 

 were treated with contemptuous silence for 35 years, or asM. Oberthur 

 tells us about the reception of Rambur's discoveries amongst the 

 skippers, which have been still longer in fructifying, so must the 

 principles underlying M. Oberthiir's demand become more generally 

 appreciated before anything practical can be done. As we become 

 more and more overwhelmed with the flood of descriptions of new 

 species, of which the number yet to be described much exceeds that of 

 those we already know, so will the brevity and precision of figures as 

 compared with descriptions be more valued. It may be further noted 

 that there is, year by year, an increasing practical acquiescence in M. 

 Oberthiir's views, figures of the whole insect and anatomical and other 

 details are more and more used, so that it seems highly probable that, 

 though Oberthiir's formula may continue to be refused acceptance, we 

 may wake some morning to find that it has been all but universally 

 adopted. 



In the next section is a note by M. Serge Alpheraky proving that 

 a sub-genus is really irrational and impossible. Various of his state- 

 ments, by the way, are open to criticism, possibly because they are 

 ■framed with a view to the point in question, rather than to mere 

 general consideration. 



Parts of his argument read as if a " genus " had first to be 

 •recognised and defined, and then it had to be seen what species would 

 go into it. It seems to us to be precisely the reverse ; first decide 

 what species group themselves together as a genus, then define the 

 genus on their characters, not forgetting that such definition may 



* Etudes de LipidopUrologie eorn-parie, par Charles Oberthur, Fasc. VI., 

 Rennes, Juillet, 1912. 



