256 THK kxtomologist's rkcord. 



neuration is correctly given, either in the Handbook or the Trans. Ent. 

 Soc. Liniihin, by this author. Not only is the shape of the wing 

 quite out of correspondence with the originals that I have compared, 

 but the distances, relative direction, and, at times, the point of 

 origin, are frequently all wrong. Worse than this, Mr. Meyrick 

 supplies nervures which have no existence, as in the primary of P. 

 iiiacularia, which has no nervure ix, and omits nervures, as in the 

 figure of the primary of Coluts eihiMi, Ihuidbook, p. 350, which has a 

 distinct viii in nature (compare my figure in the Bnttcrfiies of 

 llildi's/iciiii, Tiii. ii., fig. 7, oi Injale). The diagnosis of (ioneptenjx : 

 "Characters of CoUas { = Kuii/nms, Scudd.) but forewings Avith 10 

 separate," is incorrect as it stands, since the greatest point of dis- 

 tinction, the position of the radial veins on costa, is ignored. The 

 " prae-costal spur " of Tji'nr<)plia><ia sinapis I I.e., 852) should be compared 

 with my figure 10, to see the wide difference. But among the butterflies, 

 the figure of An/i/nnis adi/ijic, p. 328, exhibits Mr. Meyrick's work at its 

 worst. I am quite unable to recognise this figure as representing an 

 An/i/nnu. I am, myself, the victim of Mr. Meyrick's talent in the 

 direction of drawing the wings of the (iciDiu'tridae. Relying upon the 

 figures in the Trans. Ent. Soc. London, I have stated that viii and 

 ix are present in the Geometridae ; viii represented by Mr. Meyrick 

 as a dotted line, therefore as a fold or scar, and ix as a nervure, 

 represented by Mr. Meyrick as a continuous line. Now I find viii to 

 be no fold, but a '• tubular," sometimes broken, nervure, and ix to be 

 totally wanting. Mr. Meyrick reproaches Guenee with " pneudo- 

 scientific work," in the Preface to the llandliuok. The difference 

 between the two is, that JM. Guenee, in his Preface, awakes to the 

 fact that the execution of his work is much less perfect than he had 

 dreamed, while, in hin Preface, Mr. Meyrick dreams that the execution 

 of his work is quite perfect, which it is far from being. The nomen- 

 clature is often incorrect, the phylogeny wholly unsupported and 

 imaginary, the arrangement opposed to common sense, and from this 

 point of view, " unscientific." But all subjective criticism may be 

 here considered supertluous in the face of the fact that in the treat- 

 ment of the neuration, Mr. Meyrick himself offers the best illustration 

 of the " perhaps not very creditable work," which he condemns in the 

 Preface to his idiosyncratic publication. 



List of Rhynchota=Heteroptera collected by Dr. Chapman at Cannes 



in March. 



By G. W. KIRKALDY, F.E.S. 



Through the kindness of Mr. Tutt, I am enabled to add to my 

 collection the Rhynchota collected by Dr. Chapman at Cannes last 

 March, and to draw up a list for The Entomoloi/ist's Record, etc. 



The forty specimens comprise twenty species, and are practically 

 those that one would expect from a visit during the early spring to 

 that locality. Six species have a more or less restricted meridional 

 range, the remainder being fairly widely distributed throughout the 

 Paliuarctic region (twelve occurring in the British Islands, these being 

 denoted by an "••*). 



Pentatomid.b. — Pentatonui /usclKjnna/-^ Boh., three specimens; 



