326 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on 
progressoriz”’ (see p. 39). This is the only important 
change introduced by Boisduval’s Index. In all other 
respects it closely follows the Linnean arrangement. 
The Micro-Lepidoptera were the subject of a continuation 
of the “Index” undertaken by M. Guenée. The notice- 
able feature of that arrangement is the insertion of the 
Pyrales and Crambi, after Tortriz and before Tinea, an 
arrangement which has now, it seems, no apologists. 
In the year 1840, appeared Mr. Newman’s “ Familiar 
Introduction to the History of Insects; bemg a new 
edition of the grammar of Entomology,” one book of 
which is devoted entirely to an exposition of the author’s 
views upon classification (Classif. Lepidop. pp. 209-215). 
His order is—including remark, Butterflies and Moths all 
in one:—lst, ‘‘ Hawk-moths or Sphingites,” mcluding all 
the Sphingina, except the genus T’rochilium of Stainton, 
the small clearwings: 2nd, “ Skippers, or Hesperides ;” 
3rd, “ Butterflies ;” 4th, ‘Loopers, slender-bodies, or 
Geometrites ;” 5th, ‘ Half-loopers, or Phytometrites,” Plu- 
sia, Acontia, Hrastria, Phytometra, and the rest; 6th, 
«Full-bodied moths, or Noctuites;” 7th, ‘ Millers, or 
Arctiites,” Acronycta, Spilosoma, Arctia, Hypercompa, 
Lithosia, Hypogymna, Laria, Orgyia; 8th, “ Eggars, 
or Bombycites,” Hriogaster, Odonestis, Gastropacha, Lasio- 
campa; 9th, “ Emperor-moths, or Phalenites,” Saturnia 
carpint alone; 10th, ‘‘Prominents, or Notodontides,” 
Endromis, (!) Cerura, Stauropus, Platypteryx, Cilix, Noto- 
donta, Pygera, Clostera; 11th, ‘‘ Wood-eaters, or Xyleu- 
tites,’? Hepialus, Xyleutes, Zenzera; 12th, ‘ Clearwings, 
or Algeriites,’ Algeria; 13th, “ Burnet-moths, or Glau- 
copites,” Zygena, Ino; 14th, “ Pearl-moths, or Pyralites ;” 
15th, ‘‘ Veener-moths, or Crambites.” . 
In the preface (p. ix) Mr. Newman gives his own view 
of his own arrangement. ‘The Fourth Book, entitled 
Classification of Insects, may be charged with being too 
original; it may be said that the author should have 
given the views and arrangements of others in preference 
to his own. He would ask, whose system was he to select? 
That his own is the most simple, and the most readily 
understood, no one will deny ;” and he adds (two pages 
later) “‘it would be false modesty for the author to pre- 
tend blindness to the fact, that the humble efforts of his 
pen and pencil have been unusually successful,’ &c. It 
