142 



THK ENTOMOLOGIST. 



according to recent examinations. For some reason the authors miss 

 out Walker's A. vanus, and in a weird way ignore a distinct genus and 

 marked species (Atdrichia error). On page 112 they say : " This genus 

 is hased on a single specimen which was found amongst the types of 

 A. rossii deposited in the British Museum." We should like to know 

 which therefore they consider rossii. Is it Aldrichia error, or one of 

 the other five specimens left under A. rossii ? If Aldrichia error, which 

 is not a unique specimen, is only an abnormality of rossii, why not place 

 Stegomyia fasciata as an abnormality of Cule.v pipiens ? There is quite 

 as much similarity. The authors apparently have not seen the types. 

 In a similar vein these investigators state (p. 61) : " Another instance 

 of a monstrosity even more marked than the above is the specimen upon 

 which Mr. Theobald has founded a new subfamily called Heptaphle- 

 bomyia. The single insect," &c. The authors are evidently quite ignorant 

 of the fact that the single insect is a very common species in Sierra 

 Leone ; they are also equally unaware that Ventrillon has described 

 two very marked species of Heptaphlebomyia from Madagascar, and 

 that a third occurs there. They also do not seem to be aware of the 

 fact that types are single specimens. Such matters as these make us 

 at once chary of the whole work. 



The authors in a most painstaking manner describe the larva}, but 

 unless we know the exact stage described such work is of no value. 

 The frontal hairs, as Dr. Grabham has found, vary in form in different 

 stages of the same species. Do they or do they not do so in India ? 

 Until we have a more sound account of these Indian larval Anophelines 

 we cannot accept the validity of " frontal hair" characters. Let the 

 authors by all means go back for medical purposes to Anopheles, Culex, 

 and Mdes, and let them alter the original descriptions to suit them- 

 selves, but it will not do for zoological purposes. 



It is regrettable to write this of such a book ; but where there is such 

 unsound judgment and such errors it is impossible to look upon it as a 

 whole in any other way. 



The coloured plates (fifteen) are beautifully drawn by Dr. D. A. 

 Turkhud, M.B., of which some of the wings were reproduced from 

 the original drawings (given to the British Museum) in error by the 

 artist who illustrated the present writer's monograph without proper 

 acknowledgment in the work. 



Fred. V. Theobald. 



Twenty -eighth Annual Report and Proceedings of the Lancashire and 

 Cheshire Entomological Society. Session 1904. Pp. 56. 

 This well-known local Society is to be congratulated not only on 

 the considerable progress it has made in the matter of membership, 

 but also as regards the useful nature of the work its members are 

 engaged upon. Not the least valuable of the Society's efforts is the 

 proposed compilation of accurate lists of the insect fauna of the 

 counties which it represents. An important contribution to this 

 series is "A Preliminary List of the Orthoptera," by Mr. E. J. B. 

 Sopp, published in the volume before us. Another interesting paper 

 by this author is on the " Callipers of Earwigs." In an address Mr. 

 Robert Tait(Vice-President) discourses most pleasantly and instructively 



