5^14 THE entomologist's KKCOP.D. 



So that the only difference is — " Eyes hairy " and " Eyes 

 glabrous." 



Now we find that by this startling character the species — 

 an^iaih'S, iiiiniwa, se)iuar(/us, axtrarche, phlocas, and dispar constitute 

 the genus CJnysnpJuuiUfi, whilst hoctica, aniinlm, corydon, hcllarf/ta^, 

 at'iion, ivaru-s and arimi constitute Li/raena. Now, if the only character 

 on which astrardir is put into a difterent genus from teams is that 

 the former has hairy eyes, and if our author does not see the possibility 

 of one hairy-eyed genus existing in the Tribe Lycainidi, and another 

 in the Tribe Clivyaoplianidi, we would suggest that Paranic meyaera 

 and F. acycria, having also hairy eyes, might, as there is no other test 

 between these genera, be admitted into ChrysapJiamis. 



Our author, too, shows, an utter inability to appreciate the analogy 

 of the Pierid neuration, as may easily be seen by comparison of his 

 diagnosis of that of Euchloevfith tha.toi Lcur<)j)hasia. In EurJilae hemakes 

 6, 7 and 9 arise out of 8. In Leucophami, in which the type of neuration 

 is identical, except that the basal branch of the sub-costal nervure 

 does not come from the top of the discal cell, we read of 8, 9, 10 and 

 11 coming out of 7, and 6 being separate. The whole thing is absurd, 

 as may be seen by anyone preparing a wing of E. cardamiut's and one 

 of L. sincqiis. Nothing shows more completely the superficiality of 

 the author's work where the details are comparatively simple, and their 

 meanings not obscured. It would be possible to go on ad lib. with 

 detailed exposures of slipshod work and inaccuracies, even in the 

 branch of study with which our author is supposed to be especially 

 familiar, but these must suffice. 



But a well-known lepidopterist said, when he was asked to review 

 the book for the Record, "Ave want to know what the Editor himself 

 thinks about the Noctutdks," and so probably we ought to say some- 

 thing about them. With the general inclusion of the Arctiadac we 

 agree. In this family, which stands first, we find the Lithosias, 

 Nolas, Hylophilids (including nndidanus, cJdorana, bicnhirana and 

 jirasinana), which are followed by the Euchromiids, Spilosomas and 

 Arctias. The species winiata and Sfucx find themselves in one genus, 

 and mundana in another. What affinities, we would ask our author, 

 has Kola with its neighbours ; or hoAV do uudulamis and cldorana get 

 sandwiched between Lithosia on the one hand, and such species as 

 jarobaeae, crihrimt and pidchclla on the other ? Next to the Arctiadac 

 we find the family Caradrinidac. Starting with Cucidlia, we come to 

 I 'alia. This makes a man pause. There are some of us who know a 

 little about larvae, but what of this — e.voleta, rcttista, salidayinis, 

 scinihninnca, socia, lambda, furcifera, ornitlinjiu.s, arc<da, ri))iinali.'i, 

 licltcnca, protea, aprilina, chi, flavicincta, .vantlunnista .' We wonder 

 whether our author has ever had the eggs, larvfe or pupje of e.voleta, 

 sciiiibrunnea, areola, viminalis, liclienea, protea and fiaricincta before 

 him. Here are the characters of P(dia : — " Head rough-scaled ; eyes 

 glabrous, ciliated." This, we take it, would apply to an amazing 

 nmnber of British Noctuids. " Antennae in $ ciliated, or 

 bipectinated with apex filiform, rarely simple." Now it appears to 

 us that antennas must be either ciliated, partially ciliated, or 

 unciliated, and as our author admits moths with all these characters 

 into this genus, he might, so far as this is concerned, put in nearly all 

 the moth fauna of Britain. "Thorax with more or less prominent 

 anterior and slight posterior crest." It would be easy to find some 

 dozens of British moths that have " more or less " (a nice exact term) 



