284 [December, 



part regai'ded from tbe same point of view, although precedence in the series is 

 differently accorded ; e. g., the Sesiidce, ZyganidcB, Psychidm, Cossidee, Hepialidce, 

 and Limacodidce, of Hampson, take a lower position in the scale, being placed 

 beneath the Pyralidm of Hampson, whereas that author had given them con- 

 siderable precedence. 



With regard to the position of the Rhopalocera, other authors were anticipated 

 by Zebrawski, who, in his Catalogue of the Lepidoptera of Cracow (Owady 

 Luskoskrzydte czyli Motylowate zokolic Krakowa, ISGU), assigned to them an 

 analogous position. 



Eminently concise, and, with some small exceptions, clear and easy of compre- 

 hension, this book cannot fail to afford great assistance to the student who desires 

 to recognise and identify his specimens without the necessity of comparing them with 

 named examples. It is without exception the best class-book that has yet appeared 

 for imparting real sound knowledge of structure, evolution, and classification, 

 although neuration has been more particularly relied upon for the results arrived at. 

 It is, perhaps, a matter of regret that the author should not have given some com- 

 parative table, showing to what genera and families in the old system his new 

 divisions are equivalent, for only by careful study of the species included in them 

 can those who are not conversant with the new names adopted form any idea of 

 what these divisions really amount to, or wliat justification there may be for the 

 order in which he has placed them. 



The analytical tables which accompany the work throughout, together with the 

 figures illustrating typical forms of neuration, are a decided improvement upon 

 Stainton's Manual, and will greatly facilitate identification, although in the case of 

 families the tabulation seems to lack precision on account of the numerous exceptions 

 of which the author is so plainly conscious. Mr. Meyrick rightly claims that his 

 system is derived from a study of the Lepidoptera of the world, and in this respect 

 it possesses an importance far greater than could attach to such work if founded 

 upon a knowledge of any limited or merely local fauna. 



In regarding the Hepialidce in conjunction with the Micropteri/qidte, as the 

 ancestral forms through which the Lepidoptera have been evolved from Trichopterous 

 ancestry, Mr. Meyrick (following Comstock and Kellogg) appears to be fully justified 

 by his study of the New Zealand genus Palceomicra. His separation of the 

 Psi/chidcB into two groups commends itself to the fullest approval, nor can the 

 altered position of the Zygcenidee be seriously disputed, but we might be disposed 

 to question the alliances assigned to Cossus, although the characteristics of its larva 

 and pupa undoubtedly lend support to his views. So long ago as 1865 (Trans. Ent. 

 Soc. [3 ser.], vol. V, p. 5) Mr. McLachlan suggested the afiinity of Micropteryx 

 with the Trichoptera. 



The terminology recommended in the introduction is better than that in general 

 use, as being at once more concise and more precise, but exception must be taken to 

 the use of the term " patagia " where " tegulae " (which are probably equivalent to 

 elytra) are indicated, the patagia being merely what Mr. Meyrick calls the " collar." 

 Moreover, in his description of the veins, what he calls the " upper median " should 

 surely be " subcostal " or " radius," and his " lower median" should be "median" 

 or " cubitus," if he would consistently follow either Hampson with other Lepid- 



