87.] - 223 



rather singular that this fact is not mentioned in the letter-press 

 treating of the last-named insect. 



Mr. Curtis' search at Braunton Burrows for the larvse of I). 

 euphorbice in 1822 was unsuccessful, and so was my own pilgrimage to 

 the same spot some 35 years afterwards. 



In folio 7, Odonestis pini is referred in the second edition to the 

 genus Dendrolimus, and a much more detailed generic character is 

 given ; the two additional pages are devoted to Odonestis jjotatoria. 



In folio IG, Peronea ruficostana : the original edition gives only 

 the generic characters, and a description of ruficostana, with a list of 

 some 42 species. In the second edition, in which the letter-press runs 

 to 8 pages, 56 species (or what were then reputed as species) are 

 described. I said then reputed, but the question is, when ? 



This second edition bears no date ; but references are made in 

 the reprint of folio 16 to Stephens' " Illustrations," and a description 

 is copied from that work, which, b}^ a reference to the page of the 

 Illustrations, we learn was published "August 30th, 1834." 



The date must, therefore, have been subsequent to that, and 

 before the completion of the last (the 16th) volume of the British 

 Entomology, the dedication page of which bears the date December 

 1st, 1839. 



The Linnean Society possesses a copy of the original edition, tho 

 Royal Society a copy of the second edition of the British Entomology 

 of John Curtis. 



Mountsfield, Lewisham, S.E. : 

 January Zlst, 1887. 



The Curtis collection. — In September last I made an inspection of the collection 

 of English insects formed by Curtis, now in the posession of the University Museum, 

 Melbourne. It will probably interest many to know that this collection remains in 

 admirable condition ; the drawers clean, and the specimens sound and fresh-looking 

 throughout. Mr. Eershaw, the entomological curator, informed me that his principal 

 trouble had been with verdigris ; but that the collection was, so far as he knew, as 

 complete as when received. I failed to find the type of Eupacilia anthemidana, 

 which Lord Walsingham had asked me to examine ; there was no such name in the 

 cabinet at all, and I think there can be no doubt that the insect never formed part 

 of this collection. It is gratifying to find that these specimens have been as carefully 

 and skilfully preserved as they could have been in England ; but I would remark 

 that the collection is really of no particular scientific utility in Australia — indeed, I 

 doubt if any one there, besides the Museum authorities, knows of its existence — and 

 I am surprised that some English Museum does not attempt to secure it by exchange, 

 which might well be made very advantageous to both parties. — E. Meyeick, 

 Eamsbury : January Zlst, 1887. 



