ee 
Mr. M‘Lachlan remarked that the species of Lepisma exhibited at the 
last meeting by Mr. F. H. Ward, did not, on examination, correspond, as 
he expected, with the description of L. domestica, a common species in the 
United States, nor did it coincide exactly with the descriptions of any of the 
other described species, so far as he had been able to compare them. 
Prof. Westwood said he had seen British examples of Lipura corticina, 
Bourlet, on apple trees, though the insect was not included as British in 
Sir John Lubbock’s Monograph. 
Mr. C. O. Waterhouse exhibited a living specimen of Monohammus 
Heros bred in England from foreign timber. 
Dr. Sharp forwarded the following correction of an error in the third 
paper in the ‘ Transactions’ for 1873 :— 
“ Herr Wehncke, of Harburg, has called my attention to an error I have 
committed in a paper on the water-beetles of Japan, published by the Society 
in the first part of its ‘ Transactions’ for 1873. The species described there 
by me under the name of Hydaticus japonicus (p. 48) is undoubtedly the 
Hydaticus Adamsi, Clark, while the species alluded to by me, in the same 
paper, as Hydaticus Adamsi, is the Hydaticus Bowringii, Clark. The 
error was occasioned by an unfortunate transference of name in a letter 
Mr. Lewis wrote to me after making an examination of Clark’s types.” 
Mr. Butler read the following review of Boisduval’s recently-published — 
volume of the Suites a Buffon (Lepidopteres), containing the Sphingide 
(including Zygena, &c.):— 
«Dr. Boisduval’s long-expected work on the Sphingide has at length 
appeared : it is illustrated by eleven excellent coloured plates; and if these 
had been published without the letterpress, Lepidopterists would have had 
cause to be grateful to the author; as it is, the work of this veteran ento- 
mologist contains so many errors and omissions, that it only obscures the 
subject which it should have assisted in illuminating. Not only has 
Dr. Boisduval, in the 880 pages devoted to this magnificent group, 
apparently taken no pains to ascertain what has been done by other 
workers during the last nineteen years (entirely overlooking even the 
Supplement to Mr. Walker’s Catalogue), but he has returned to the errors 
of Fabricius and his contemporaries, in his disregard of the law of priority : 
he calmly renames well-characterized genera and species, quoting the 
universally accepted names as synonyms, and gives no reason whatever 
for so doing; he constantly gives to his own MS. names preference to the 
descriptions of others; he quotes Catalogue lists of undescribed species, 
thus conveying to the mind of the unwary student the impression that his 
species have long been characterized; and in addition to all this he hope- 
lessly confounds together subfamilies and genera whose larve are utterly 
distinct. In proof of the recent publication of this work (dated 1874) I feel 
compelled to subjoin an extract from a letter which I recently received from 
