220 y^ ' LMaich, 



" The great majority of species described in works on Systematic 

 Zoology are merely morphological species. That is to say, one or more 

 specimens of a kind of animal having been obtained, these specimens 

 have been f onnd to differ from any previously knovrn by the character or 

 characters n ; and this difference constitntes the definition of the new 

 species, and is all \re really know about its distinctness. But, in prac- 

 tice, the formation of specific groups is more or less qualified by 

 considerations based upon what is known respecting variation" (p. 291). 



" It follows that the species, regarded as the sum of the morpho- 

 logical characters in question and nothing else, does not exist in nature ; 

 but that it is an abstraction, obtained by separating the structural 

 characters in which the actual existences agree, from those in which 

 they differ, and neglecting the latter" (p. 213). 



" In the physiological sense, a species means a group of animals, 

 the members of which are capable of completely fertile union with oiie 

 another, but not with the members of any other group." (p. 296). 



These extracts give the basis of the ideas of species f irtt}^ set forth 

 in Prof. Huxley's work, which exhibits close reasoning and induction 

 and should be studied by all who desire to be learners in the great 

 school of Nature.— J. W. D. 



NOTES ON TENTHREDINID^ AND CYNIPID^. 

 BY P. CAMERON. 



A short time before his death, the late Mr. F. Smith was good 

 enough to examine for me one or two species of Tentliredinidce in the 

 Linncan collection, regarding the names of which there was some un- 

 certainty. This examination showed that Tenthredo viridis, L., = T. 

 picfa, King ; while T. mesomela, L., = T. viridis, King. The types, 

 therefore, confirm Thomson's determinations made from the descrip- 

 tions of these two species ; and these names may be adopted without 

 hesitation. According to Thomson, T. nemoralis, L , = L//da pra- 

 tensis, Fab., but the type of nemoralis, according to Mr. Smith, is a 

 Nematus, apparently, from Mr. Smith's description, N. caprecp, Pz. 

 The type (or, rather, what now stands for the type of nemoralis, for it 

 is clear that nemoralis, as described, is not a Nematus) thus throws no 

 light on the disputed point as to whether nemoralis be identical with 

 j^rai^enm, Eab., or with j:;M«c^«^r^, Fab., as Zaddach would have it. I 

 believe myself that the last identification is the correct one, for the 

 Linncan words " abdominis segmentis lateralibus albis " ^t p)iinctata 

 better than they do jjratensis ; for although that species has markings 

 along the sides, yet they are "fulvis " rather than "albis." There is 

 no '■'■ Tenthredo pratensis " (said by Thomson to be identical with Dolerus 

 eglanterice, Klug) in the collection, nor any named species of Dolerus. 



