RECENT LITERATURE. 79 
ingredients of the genera Barichnewmon and Cratichnewmon which 
are much intermingled, if he had not so closely followed the second 
author cited, and a great many of Forster’s genera, given by Dalla 
Torre, are most unnatural ones; but it is a systematist’s duty to 
include all the divisions erected, though subsequent writers are 
fortunately at liberty to ignore them, if found invalid. Particularly 
in the Pezomachoid subgenera is this the case, since these sections 
are founded entirely upon alar development, of no stability in these 
groups; and one is led to think Pezomachus itself but poorly repre- 
sented by thirty-four species, though many more can now be added, 
since we have ourself seen several species in M. de Gaulle’s collection, 
not herein included. The grouping of the Pimplini genera is some- 
what novel, though it is in no way to be condemned; and many of 
those among the Mesoleptini might have been dispensed with to 
greater advantage, especially the Forsteran, though that author’s 
really useful Alloplasta has not been employed for Meniscus murinus, 
Gravy. The Braconids follow Marshall’s arrangement in André’s 
great work, with various doubtful improvements from Szeplegeti in 
‘Genera Insectorum.’ The listis a full one, though itis surprising to 
find but forty-two species of Apanteles enumerated: seventy-three are 
British. France has evidently paid a great deal more attention to her 
Chalcidide than Britain of late. The catalogue is not extensive, though 
very instructive, comparing favourably with that of our own species 
recently presented for publication to the Entomological Society of 
London by Mr. Claude Morley, which comprises over fourteen hundred 
species. It is, however, quite otherwise with the Chrysids, Ants, 
and, in fact, all the Aculeata ; and one is led to speculate upon our 
insular dearth of these things. The author has conferred one real 
boon upon all systematists in distinctly intimating such “ species” as 
are mere MS. names, both in Dours’ ‘ Catalogue’ and in Dr. Giraud’s 
very excellent ‘Liste des éclosions d’Insectes” (Ann. Soc. Fr. 1877, 
pp. 397-436). Another is the addition of food-plants in the phyto- 
phagous, and host-names in the parasitic, species; as well as the 
establishment of the synonymy of names in Fourcroy’s ‘ Entomologia 
Parisiensis’ and De Fonscolombe’s ‘ Ichneumonologie Provincale’ of 
1847 to 1854. M. de Gaulle, in a post-scriptum, requests that all 
additions to the French fauna and suggestions for the good of the 
Catalogue be sent him. We can do no more than return our thanks 
for an exceedingly valuable and laborious list, and venture to note 
that there is no summary of the exact number of species in the 
various families, subfamilies, and tribes enumerated. The total is 
said to approximate five thousand species, one comparing most 
favourably with the two thousand six hundred of the old Catalogue, 
though the total is suspected of reaching eight thousand when full 
investigation of France’s Hymenoptera has been achieved. 
C. M. 
Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology. Vol. ii, No. 4. 
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. 
Amona the contents are ‘““A new Culicid Genus,” by F. V. 
Theobald, M.A.; and “Note sur le réle des Tabanides dans la 
Propagation des Trypanosomiases’”’ par Le Dr. Edmond Sergent. 
