/ 2 THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



If Prof. Smith always acted on the same lines, we should welcome his 

 statement on p. 173, that in his use of Hydroecia he is following 

 European precedent. Helotroplia reniformh, Grote, too, is treated as 

 distinct from our H. lencosiupna, although it is apparently inseparable. 

 On p. 182, we still find the good old method of making Levcan/a 

 (an Agrotid group), follow jV^0H^r;/»-/V/ (an Apamid group), .altliough their 

 early stages show no I'elationship whatever. No one who knew the 

 early stages of the species could possibly fail to sepaiate these divergent 

 groups. The early stages of all our British Lencanias and Nonagriaf^ 

 are known ; would it not be better for Prof. Smith to be guided l\v 

 British work, done in a really scientific manner, rather than to go on 

 perpetuating this palpable blunder ? True, the imagines are of the 

 same colour, but the Professor must know that among the Crambid.ti:, 

 CMlo and its allies have the same facies, but this superficial re- 

 semblance, produced evidently by natural selection under the same 

 environment, has no scientific basis. Here is something, too, for our 

 systematists to digest — the genera Cosmia, Cleoceris, Anchocelis, placed 

 following each other, whilst Pyrrha lunbra (our Heliothis mart/inatus) is 

 sandwiched between Anchocelis and Orthosia. Here, too, is a strange 

 combination : Xanthia, Cirrhocdia, Scoliopteryx (libatrix), Scopelosoiiui , 

 followed by Xylina, nor does our author apparently attempt to separate 

 Xyliiia and Calocampa. Xylina is placed in close contact with Calo- 

 campa, a course which has been everywhere perpetuated and adopted, 

 although proved by recent observation to be entirely erroneous. The 

 Plmiidue, as a whole, are placed before the HcJiothidae. 



We sat down to this Catalogue with the intention of having a few 

 hours' interesting study ; we rise from its study with a feeling somewhat 

 akin to pain. A most industrious production, it yet lacks that touch 

 which convinces the specialist that the wt>rkman has clinched his sub- 

 ject. Nay, he feels lost repeatedly, he recognises no land-mark to help 

 him, or, if he thinks he does, it is only to find that the compiler is out 

 of touch with the more advanced thought of to- day. Such pioneer 

 work is very necessary. The collecting together of synonyms must be 

 done, but at the same time, an attempt to classify should not show such 

 an utter l)reak-down, such a want of information as to what has been 

 done. If the early stages of nine-tenths of the American Nootuid.tj 

 are unknown, whilst those of nine-tenths of the European Noctuid.^ 

 are known, and if the NocTUiD.ii: of America have their representatives 

 in Europe, surely it is the work of the compiler and classifier to apply 

 the sum total of knowledge obtainable to such work as this. It has 

 been the curse of ovir British Museum work on Lejiidoptera for years and 

 years, that the work done has been (as a rule) performed without the 

 slightest knowledge of contemporary science, with the result that not 

 a single lepidopterist of repute really troubles about the great mass of the 

 Museum work at all. I would especially exclude Kirby and Hampson's 

 work from this animadversion. This Catalogue is what I should call a 

 real Museum production, a compilation requiring herculean labour and 

 immense industry, but one that, when finished, is a stumbling-block to 

 the intelligent workei's of the world, that separates still more the 

 entomologists of Europe and America, that makes science utterly 

 subservient to names, and not names to science. The compilation of 

 synonyms is probably perfect. Then let Professor Smith see what in 

 Europe are the representatives of genera, and tell us why all this 

 mystification. 



