2 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



everywhere. Its occurrence in North Cornwall, where the normal 

 form (as here also figured), does not seem to be at all exception- 

 ally dark, is all the more striking. The only aberration indi- 

 cated in Staudinger's ' Catalog ' is a whiter form (ab. pastoraria, 

 Joan.). 



\5t will be observed that the fringes in both cases are paler in 

 colour than in the typical form. 



CURRENT CRITICISM. 

 By W. L. Distant. 



Mr. Kirkaldy is to be praised for the industry with which he 

 pursues his task as reviewer of current entomology, but accuracy 

 is always an advantage, and his last notes in the ' Entomo- 

 logist ' (1906, p. 283), so far as they apply to myself, require 

 reply. In referring to my ' Catalogue of the Cicadidee,' he 

 writes: — "On p. 146, Cicada angulata, Hagen, is cited as a 

 synonym of Tlbicen annulatus ; on p. 168 it is given by Distant 

 as a synonym of Cicadetta hageni.'* This statement is almost a 

 suppressio veri ! On p. 166 (not 146) I give the synonymy as 

 stated, but on p. 168 I am only referring to a species of which 

 I have no personal knowledge, among others of a similar descrip- 

 tion, separated by a dividing line, and only quoted as probably 

 belonging to the genus' Melampsalta (not Cicadetta); thus°M. ? 

 hageni. Fieber gives as its synonym part of Hagen's species — 

 y* Cicada annulata, Hag. (nee Brulle,") and I therefore could not 

 refer to the one without the other. 



Mr. Kirkaldy 's emphatic assertion that " Amyot's monony- 

 mics, accepted by Distant, have no place in trinomial nomen- 

 clature," is negatived by their employment by Stal, Karsch, and 

 other qualified writers. His further remark, "as is often the 

 case with this author, accuracy of dates seems a minor matter," 

 seems to be an expression of Mr. Kirkaldy' s opinion, and there- 

 fore concerns nobody but himself. 



Mr. Kirkaldy has also referred to a difference of opinion 

 between Dr. Reuter and myself regarding the classification of the 

 Capsidse, which he says, with perfect accuracy, " the learned 

 Finlander resents." He also gives his decision that my groups 

 are " entirely artificial," and that Dr. Reuter's " are based, as 

 far as present knowledge permits, on philosophical principles." 

 It therefore seems a little surprising that Mr. Kirkaldy should 

 have recently (Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 1906) proposed his own 

 classification of the family, rather than follow that of "the 

 learned Finlander," and in which he has proposed a division of 

 some twenty-six tribes. It is only fair, however, to Mr. Kirkaldy 

 to say that, in a subsequent publication of the same year 



