1894] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 23 



study of American moths. From this time on it will be possible for anyone 

 who has access to a fair entomological library, with the aid of this work 

 to intelligently study our Noctuidae. The references to all the species are 

 given, and also the original generic references, as well as the synonym}', 

 etc., of all the species. The habitat, time of appearance, and location of 

 the types are all given, as well as any other notes considered of impor- 

 tance. A most valuable inde.x is given, which adds very materially to the 

 value of the work, inasmuch as every name used in the body of the work 

 is referred to. This will be invaluable to many collectors and students 

 who have their species under old or improper generic names, and who do 

 not know where to place them in our later lists. The advent of such a 

 work is of vast importance, as it makes it possible for the general student 

 to work in what was heretofore a special field only open to a few most 

 painstaking workers who worked out the literature for themselves. Prof. 

 • Smith is to be congratulated on this work, and also to a greater extent 

 the entomologists of America, who will be benefitted by it. 



We have received Bulletin of the United States National Museum, No. 

 45, devoted e.Kclusively to Mr. William H. Ashmead's monograph of the 

 North American Proctrotrypidae, the receipt of which we take pleasure 

 in acknowledging. The work is quite voluminous, there being 454 pages 

 of text and 18 excellent plates executed by the author. Mr. Ashmead 

 considers that the Proctotrypidae "have but little affinity to the Chalci- 

 didae," and should be placed at the head of the Terebrantia, as he be- 

 lieves them to be closely related to the Aculeata, and further asserts that 

 after the removal of the group Myrmarinae, which he regards as a distinct 

 family, they have no relation to the Chalcididae. The external structural 

 characters are described at length, and plate I is entirely devoted to the 

 illustration of them. The habits, dimorphism and parthenogenisis, life- 

 history and distribution are dwelt on. He asserts that there is scarcely 

 any doubt, but that many of the wingless species to be found in the various 

 genera are only dimorphic forms of winged species, but as little positive 

 is known on the subject, they must be described as distinct species, as 

 any other course would be but guesswork, and, consequently, unscientific. 

 Such forms must be bred from generation to generation before anything 

 positive can be learned regarding them. The arrangement proposed by 

 Halliday, in 1839, he discards as unnatural, as the scheme widely sepa- 

 rates some closely-allied groups. The classification of Forster being re- 

 garded by him as the most satisfactory, he has made it the basis of his 

 own work. After reviewing the works of numerous authors his own clas- 

 sification is announced, in which he recognizes ten subfamilies, all of 

 which were regarded as families by Forster. After tabulating the sub- 

 families, and the genera likewise, the species are so treated. Many new 

 species are brought to light, as is well illustrated in the genus Megaspihis, 

 in which the species are trebled, and still better in Polygnotus, in which 

 genus the number *of species is increased from three to thirty-three. 

 The work is completed by a "tabular view" of the bred North American 



