X76 THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



observations, chiefly from Lancashire, are (juoteil in Melanism and 

 Melanochroism in Britifih Lepidnptera. A new race of entomologists 

 appears to have sprang up in Lancashii-e, wlio commence tlieir studies by 

 doubtiu"' the accuracy of tlie records made by their direct predecessors 

 less than twenty years ago. We can understand a difference of oi)inion 

 as to the causes which have produced the change so often described, but 

 to question the facts is beyond our comprehension. The writer in our 

 contemporary is probably a genuine Rip Van Winkle. During the last 

 ten years we have been attempting to unravel why these things are so ; 

 now we are told that the things do not exist, but when we have proved 

 " the fact, then " the writer in question " will accept the theory without 

 hesitation." 



gURRENT NOTES. 



It is with extreme regi-et that we record the death at the early age 

 of 46, of Prof. G. J. Romanes. His was one of those master minds, 

 which can take the facts and observations recorded by the humbler 

 follower of science, and weave them into a philosophical theory which 

 correlates and expounds them. Science has suffered a very severe loss 

 by his untimely but not wholly unexpected death. 



In July, 1890, a paper entitled "Notes on the Synonymy of 

 Haworth's plumes," was published In this magazine (Vol. I., pp. 1)0-95J 

 which brought a very flattering letter from Mr. Stainton, who expressed 

 himself well-satisfied with tlie conclusions there enunciated. One of 

 the subjects discussed was Haworth's migadactyla, and the conclusion 

 there arrived at was that migadadyla, Haw. = spilodactyla, Curt. After 

 four years Mr. C. W. Dale discovers that the sale of Haworth's insects 

 took place in 1833 and that, according to a sale catalogue in his 

 possession, his father bought the lot of "plumes" "containing Haworth's 

 miqadactyliis " {sic). It is well-known that Wood erroneoush' considered 

 our herirami to be Haworth's migadactyJa, whilst it is equally well 

 known that Haworth's paUidadyla = our hertrami. Mr. Dale appears 

 to have known the fact relating to Wood, and immediately inferred 

 that Haworth's usage was the same. He then appears to have referred 

 to such of Haworth's " plumes " as are still in his collection, finds that 

 he does not possess among them spilodactyla, and at once jumps to the 

 conclusion that Haworth did not know a species which he describes 

 and locates, perfectly unmindful that (1) Haworth's migadactyla type 

 may not have been in the sale at all ; (2) That his father (even if he 

 boiu'-ht all the " plumes ") had the specimens many years before his son 

 C. W. was born, and during the time that he was in nuhibus and in statu 

 pupillaris ; (3) That his father may have broken, shifted labels, given 

 away, &c. many specimens before Mr. Dale knew anything of entomology, 

 and before the collection came into his possession. Practically, 

 Mr. Dale begins by saying that his father bought the specimen (or 

 specimens), then that he does not possess any specimen agreeing with 

 Haworth's description of it and concludes, therefore, that Haworth 

 must have described a worn ochrodactyla as this species, although it is 

 known that Haworth's ochrodactyla were called palUdactyla, and then, to 

 clinch the matter, becomes scientifically heroic, declares that he " has, 

 at least, one advantage over Mr. Tutt in having had an entomological 



