33i Miscellaneous. 



We notice two slips in tliis part, all the more remarkable because 

 they appear in Dr. Hartert's work. Thus, in the trinomirial desig- 

 tion of two species of Serilophus he writes lunoatus for haiadts, and 

 this, too, while in the synonymy immediately below he spells the 

 word correctly. 



Part 2 is by the Editor. "We note here, as in other parts, a very 

 decided unfamiliarity with the anatomical characters, which are, we 

 suspect, introduced rather as a make-weight, or for appearance' sake, 

 than for the conviction they convey to the authors. We are forced 

 to this conclusion by the selection of the characters nsed and by the 

 perpetuation of old and obvious blunders. Thus, for example, the 

 Todies are described as having no carotids, a misprint for tico carotids 

 lirst made by Seebohm, and copied from this author into more than 

 one work of importance I 



Parts 3, 4, 5 deal with the Parrots — the Xestoridae, Cacatuidac, 

 and Stringopidae. These have been written by Count 8alvadori. 

 Here, as in the other groups dealt with in these parts, no allusion 

 is made to the nestling, nor any account given of the coloration of 

 the first plumage, by which we are left to infer that it resembles 

 that of the adult. But surely in a work of this kind such infor- 

 mation would be more valuable than such scraps of anatomical lore 

 as that the " orbital ring is complete " ! No mention is made of the 

 possession of powder-down patches among the Parrots, or of the 

 movable hinge of the beak, nor are the feet anywhere described as 

 zygodactyle. 



There are numerous coloured figures in these parts, which serve 

 their purpose well enough, but the drawing of the overlap of the 

 wing-coverts of the Parrots is hopelessly inaccurate. 



MISCELLANEOUS. 



IToie on the Genus laspis, Kcnje. 

 By Hamiltox H. Drcce, E.Z.S., F.E.S. 



Mk. W. J. Kate, in his paper entitled " A Catalogue of the 

 Lepidoptera Pihopalocera of Trinidad," published in the Trans. Ent. 

 Soc. 1904, has described, under the family Lycasnidtc on p. 19G, a 

 new genus, to which he gives the name laspis, and states that its 

 type is Symmacliia temesa, Hew. He furthermore, under the 

 heading of the species (no. 159) laspis temesa, gives an incorrect 

 reference, thus : — '''^ Symmacliia temesa, Hew., 111. D. L. p. 1. no, 2. 

 18G8." 



Now Hewitson described his Symmachia temesa in E()uat. Lcp. 

 p. 52, in 1870, and figured it in his Exot. Butt. iv. >Symm. and 

 Charis, t. ii. figs. 17, 18, in 1871. 



A perusal of Air. Kaye's description shows that it does not 

 represent the insect of which I have quoted the synonymy. 



