lxiii 
genera or families, and this is an omission; but an estimate by 
counting a number of pages taken at random gives between nine 
and ten thousand as the number of species and varieties; and the 
full and excellent index has about twelve thousand separate 
references, and appears to contain every generic and specific 
name, and almost every synonym and variety mentioned in the 
volume. That such a laborious work, and one of such great use 
to entomologists, should have been undertaken by so young a 
man as Mr. Kirby, and successfully completed in so short a time 
and under the disadvantage of residence in Dublin, where no 
extensive collections or complete entomological libraries exist, 
excites our admiration and respect, and proves the author to be 
not unworthy of the honoured name he bears. 
In so extensive a work errors are unavoidable, and the fact that 
they are discovered and pointed out can hardly be said to detract 
materially from its merits or its value, if the author does all in 
his power to circulate among his readers lists of such errata. 
Every one will then have it in his power to make the needful 
corrections, each in its proper place, and the work may thus be soon 
rendered perfect as a book of reference. Leaving such inevitable 
errors to be discovered by those who use the work, I propose to 
make a few remarks on some more general topics suggested by 
this catalogue and by the other works of the like nature to which 
I have referred. 
I would first note the omission of any statement in the preface 
of what systematic arrangement has been followed. It appears 
to differ in many points from all previous arrangements, and Mr. 
Kirby thus lays himself open to the very just criticism of Mr. 
Lewis, that a catalogue is not the right place to introduce a new 
classification, still less to introduce it without note or comment, 
reason or explanation. 
The most novel, and, as many will think, the worst feature of 
the book, is the entire revision of the generic nomenclature (not 
of the synonymy merely, as stated in the preface), in accordance 
with a series of rules selected from those issned by the British 
Association and published in their Report for 1865. This 
revision has the effect of abolishing scores of old and familiar 
names, and replacing them by others altogether new to the 
majority of Lepidopterists. This is done, either because the 
name is supposed to be preoccupied in some other branch of 
