56 NEUROFTERA. 



Thus the classification of Stephens rests almost throughout 

 upon the previous works of Leach, and this is sufficiently 

 indicated from the fact that the genera in Stephens' " Illus- 

 trations" are for the most part very good, whilst the de- 

 scription attached to the genus often contains very striking 

 errors, as in the number of spurs and joints of the palpi. 

 This circumstance, coupled with the insufficient descriptions, 

 has rendered the determination of his species impossible ; 

 their number is very considerable (187), but may be reduced 

 more than a third when the double references to species are 

 deducted. Two years before the appearance of the " Illus- 

 trations," Curtis had given the characters of a number of new 

 species in the "Philosophical Magazine" for 1834; these 

 also cannot be determined with certainty from the descriptions, 

 whilst, on the contrary, the species in the " British Entomo- 

 logy" of the same author, the number of which is unfortu- 

 nately small, are represented in his well known masterly 

 manner. A few species, given by Donovan and others, are 

 hardly to be determined with certainty. 



The section of Westwood's " Introduction" relating to the 

 Phryyanidce constitutes, as is always the case in this classical 

 work, a rich mine of information. The deficiency referred 

 to, in the descriptive part of the works of Stephens and 

 Curtis, and in Walker's u Catalogue," is the less blameable 

 in those naturalists, as every work upon the Pkrygauidce, 

 not excluding Pictet's Monograph, are in the same case. 

 This deficiency, therefore, is evidently due to the difficulty 

 of the subject itself, and to the fact that these naturalists 

 have confined themselves entirely to characters of coloration. 

 Rambur and Brauer (Neurojrt. Austr.) have, therefore, 

 rightly struck into a new course, and employed structural 

 characters in the identification of the species. Unfortunately 



