142 
The long-expected volume of the Ray Society, on the British He- 
miptera-Heteroptera, by Messrs. Douglas and Scott, was published 
last summer. I must confess that my expectations of the work have 
been disappointed. The plates by Mr. Robinson are exquisite, and 
evidently great care has been taken by the authors of the descrip- 
tions ; but the book is all descriptions; throughout there is no attempt 
to differentiate either the genera or the species, * or to throw one ray 
of light on their affinities or distribution. ‘“‘ Commencing with the 
head and finishing with the abdomen,” as M. Guérin-Méneville ob- 
served on another occasion, “is a very easy way of getting on, and 
reduces the task to a merely mechanical operation, for it is only 
necessary to put down all you see of an insect to describe it, and then 
leave to the poor reader the care and trouble of picking out all that 
seems good to him.” We should have been glad to know why some 
names are exchanged for others of later date, or, in many cases, of 
the authors’ own creation; and we would especially complain that all 
names not adopted by the authors have been omitted from the index. 
Messrs. Douglas and Scott, following Fieber, have distributed our 
comparatively few British species into a number of little groups, sixty- 
four altogether, which they call families. 
A little work, entitled ‘The Animal Creation: a Popular Introduc- 
tion to Zoology,’ by Professor Rymer Jones, has been published by 
the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. As the books of that 
Society are largely circulated, I deeply regret that the entomological 
part was not written by one who had more acquaintance with the sub- 
ject. For instance, the weevils are referred to “ Bruchus,” the 
diamond beetles only coming under “ Curculio;” the “ long-horned 
beetle (Prionus)” is given as an example of the “ Xylophagi,” and this 
is illustrated by a poor wood-cut figure of the well-known stag’s-horn 
(Macrodontia cervicornis) ; an Anobium represents Ptinus, and so on. 
The work, if such mistakes had been avoided, would nevertheless 
have been considerably below the present state of Science, even as a 
popular publication. 
The appearance of ‘ The Zoalocical Record’ is a new feature in 
our literature. Nearly half the volume is devoted to Insects, and this 
part is written by Mr. Dallas with that exhaustive care which leaves 
little to be desired. The want of an Index, however, is to be 
* Except such phrases as “ longish oval, stout,” for one genus, “ elongate oval, 
broad,” for the next, or “ oval” for the third, occupying the line directly under each 
genus; or, under the species, ‘‘ cinnamon-brown,” to contrast with “ brown-yellow,” &c. 
