214 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



himself to think that attention to accessories can be dispensed 

 with. There is abundant evidence that Mr. South has viewed 

 his subject with an entomological and orthographic eye. And I 

 therefore make no apology for asking him to take note of 

 the following trifles, as doubtless a second edition of his list will 

 at no long interval be called for. 



There are very few generic synonyms given, only about three 

 dozen in all ; and such as there are might very well be omitted. 

 It would be a great improvement if an external margin were 

 allowed for the generic names, instead of printing them on the 

 same level with the specific names ; the latter have a margin, as 

 well as distinctive type, to separate them from the synonyms ; 

 the generic names should commence as much to the left of the 

 specific names as the latter do to the left of the synonyms. 



As a rule, the names are followed by an abbreviation of the 

 name of the author supposed to be responsible for them, but 

 without, any reference to the work in which the family or genus is 

 founded or the species described. It strikes me that, for the 

 familiar and generic names, the original nomenclator is not 

 always the one whose abbreviation follows the name ; but having 

 no books at hand I cannot now verify this. A good many of the 

 family-names are without any author's name at all ; it would 

 have been no detriment if all of them had been left without. In 

 a few instances the name of the author has been omitted in the 

 case of a generic or specific name, as e.g. the genus Hedya 

 (p. 23; should it not be Hedia?), and Padisca ratzeburghiana 

 (p. 25 ; is the h required ?). 



The family-names are for the most part formed on a uniform 

 principle. But Brephides (p. 11) is an exception, and it may be 

 doubted whether Amphidasydae (p. 12) and Botydae (p. 18) are 

 right ; Pieridse (p. 1) and Phycidae (p. 20) should be Pierididae and 

 Phycididae ; but, on the other hand, Chrysocorididae (p. 18) seems 

 to me to be a mistake (even if Chrysocoris were right). Steniiadae 

 (p. 18) and Galleridae (p. 21) are probably nothing more than 

 misprints for Steniidae and Galleriidae. If Ennomos, Ephyra, 

 and Zerene sink as synonyms, the families should no longer be 

 called Ennomidae (p. 11), Ephyridse (p. 13), or Zerenidae (p. 14). 



The generic name Aporophyla occurs twice : once in the 

 Apanieidae (p. 6), and again in the Hadenidae (p. 9). And can it 

 be that Heineniann's Doryphora (p. 33) has priority over the 



