70 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 
for this final volume of my husband’s (Alpheus Spring Packard) 
Monograph of the Bombycine Moths are printed, with the excep- 
tion of editorial additions, exactly as he left them at the time of his 
death on February 14th, 1905.” He “was fully aware of the 
incomplete condition of this later part and had expected to spend 
much time in finishing it.’”’ Professor Cockerell in the Introduction 
says that Dr. Packard ‘‘ contemplated what would have amounted to 
a monograph of the Saturnioid moths of the world. Beginning with 
the North American forms he soon found it necessary to make 
comparisons with those of other regions . . . As all Lepidopterists 
know, he was led to novel and interesting conclusions regarding the 
classification of these insects. . . . As will be seen, great progress 
had been made, but very much remained to be done... . The 
arrangement is that of the Editor, following, however, the order of 
genera preferred by Dr. Packard, so far as could be ascertained. . . . 
Additions have been made . . . indicated by square brackets.” 
If we compare this part with the two preceding ones, we find 
that in Part I, the Notodontids, the species treated of are entirely 
North American, in Part II, South American are practically 
included, and in the one before us there is no geographical limit to 
the species dealt with. Dr. Packard obviously had to: enlarge the 
area of his studies of this super-family as he went on. So far we 
might have gained largely, but unfortunately the work was cut 
short, so that whilst in Part I, 86 pp. out of 290 are devoted to 
general considerations bearing on the Notodontids, from the general 
structure and classification of Lepidoptera to special details, and in 
Part II there are 55 pp. out of 147 discussing the structure, coloura- 
tion, philogeny, etc., of the Notodonts, Sphinges and Ceratocamps, 
and discussions of their affinities, in the part before us, anything of 
the sort is absent, though unquestionably, had Dr. Packard lived, 
the corresponding essays and discussions in this volume would have 
been of the greatest interest and importance. This is the measure 
of what we have lost. It is true that various minor points of the 
relationships between allied species and genera are shortly discussed, 
as, for example, one, of perhaps wider bearing than some of the 
others, as to Rothschildia and Attacus (from ‘Psyche,’ 1902), showing 
that forms from America (Rothschildia) differed very markedly in 
their neuration and other points from extremely similar Asiatic 
ones (Attacus). 
Dr. Packard’s discussion of the position of Aglia taw from ‘Proc. 
Am. Philos. Soc.’ 1893, are quoted (p. 19) and on the Saturniid 
family from the same volume (p. 151). 
The remarkable change at the last moult in the larva of Rhodia 
fugax, losing as it does all but two of its tubercles and bristles, 
affords remarks as to somewhat similar changes in Rothschildia 
Cercophana and Aglia (p. 170). Onthe last two pages there are some 
valuable observations on Brahmea japonica, in which features 
suggesting relationship to Megalopyge, Ceratocampa, Bombyx and 
Endromis are discussed. All these and others hardly console us for 
the loss of the wide general conclusions. 
The volume, in fact, consists of descriptions of the imagines, 
usually critical and with references to structure, of life histories, 
