136 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 
The subscription list was to close on January 15th, 1879, and we 
have just (March 27th) received the first part. This is of the 
promised size, and three plain plates very clearly illustrate the 
structure of the head, antenne, and thorax. The Introductiou 
commences with a few pages on Entomology in general, but soon 
proceeds to the Hymenoptera in particular. The subjects already 
treated of—viz., collection, preservation, and structure—are well 
and concisely considered; and we sincerely hope that this homely 
work will not fall short of the ideal which is attempted. Homely, 
because dedicated ‘‘a la mémoire de mon pére, & ma mére,” and 
printed ‘‘ chez auteur,” who promises that “all my time, all my 
efforts and all my will, both are now and ever will be at the 
service of this work; which will be the work of my life.” 
We heartily wish M. André may be enabled to carry out his 
good intentions, and bring the work to a successful completion. 
Other methods of publication might have been preferable; but 
the necessity for a competent work on European Hymenoptera is 
great; and we hope that this labour of love may not have been 
undertaken in vain.—H. A. F. 
Notes of Observations of Injurious Insects. Report, 1878. 
London: West, Newman & Co., 1879. 
THE present report shows that this praiseworthy undertaking 
continues to meet with success. Much more, however, might be 
accomplished ; and we look upon it as almost a duty for practical 
entomologists to support Miss E. A. Ormerod, and to favour her 
or her colleagues with the results of their observations. The 
twenty-seven pages of the 1878 report contain much valuable 
information; and we see that in addition to the hitherto sixteen 
specially noted species, five others are to be included. These 
well-known destructives are two craneflies (Tipul@) and three 
weevils (Otiorhynchus, Bruchus, and Sitones). 
It has been said that insect injury in Britain is so slight that 
it is unnecessary to seek its hmitation. Many practical farmers 
will, we fancy, hardly endorse this opinion; and even if they did, 
surely the easier the task the greater the discredit both to British 
entomologists and to British agriculturists for the negligent per- 
formance of it. Miss Ormerod’s disinterested labours are happily 
turned in this direction, and deserve, if they cannot command, 
every success.—H. A. F. 
