1I}C} BihUvyrajihical Xutices. 



Itoiiig possibly indigenous and the other 2 accidental!}" introduced 

 European species. Of the lo, 1 (A^iosin erijypus, Cram.) is intro- 

 duced, 5 are Australian, and the remaining 9 (or 10 if Chrysophonus 

 Feredinii, Bates, is distinct from C. saJiistiits, Fabr.) are species 

 absolutely peculiar to >>'ew Zealand. 



There is a brief but useful introduction dealing with Metamor- 

 phosis, Anatomy, Origin of Species, Classification, and Geographical 

 Di>itributioi). In Classification ^[r. Hudson follows Mr. Meyrick's 

 system, of which we need only say here that it is too soon yet to 

 I>ri'dict how far its innovations are likely to V)e ultimately accepted 

 by entomologists, especially as regards the propriety of placing the 

 butterflies in the middle of the moths, instead of as a perfectly sepa- 

 rate group. Even as regards the Hesperiidic (which, by the way, 

 are not represented in New Zealand) the connecting links between 

 butterflies and moths arc so few and ui. certain that it appears to 

 many entomologists that to place the butterflies in the middle of 

 the moths is an innovation only likely to further increase the diffi- 

 culties of a satisfactory classification of Lcpidoptera, which has been 

 recognized for the last century as one of the hardest problems of 

 entomology. 



All the species known to the author are figured, the original 

 descriptions of others being copied, and full information is given 

 about habits, localities, food-plants, distribution. &c. An Appendix 

 by Florence W. Hudson contains a brief descriptive list of plants 

 mentioned. The first two plates are plain, dealing with structure 

 and neuration, the third includes coloured figures of larvae and 

 pupse, and the remainder are devoted to perfect insects. The large 

 size of the plates is a great economy in allowing a considerable 

 number of figures to be inserted on one plate. We find as many as 

 fifty-two figures on plate viii., \^hich is devoted to " Notodontinaj," 

 which all lepidopterists will recognize as Geometridfe, an iniiovation 

 for which Mr. Hudson is not responsible, but which is likely, we 

 are afraid, to remind many entomologists of an uncomplimentary 

 expression which sometimes occurs in Euclid. 



In some respects we think that Mr. Hudson should have given 

 fuller information, especially as his book is intended for use in a 

 country where entomological libraries cannot always be easy of 

 access. We think the dates of all the references should have been 

 given throughout, and not only occasionally, and the references 

 themselves should have been fuller. It is not suflScient under 

 Sphinx convoli'uli, L., to quote merely Protoparce distans, Butl., 

 without any clue to where the insect is described and figured, nor 

 any remark whatever on the characters which led Koch and Butler 

 to consider the Australian and Xew Zealand form of the insect 

 distinct from the European. The references are : — 



Sphirur roseofa-sciata, Koch, Indo-Austr. Lep. Fauna, p. o4 (I860). 

 Sphinx dixtam, Butl. Lep. N. Zealand (Vov. ' Erebus ' and ' Terror 'j, 

 p. 4, pi. ii. fig. 11 (1874). 



There is an extraordinary error on p. 104, where Hiipolimnas 

 holina, L., is placed in the genus Amnio, as if it was congeneric 



