Vol. XXXJ ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. I49 



ation; the imaginal wings have broad, well developed scales of a higher 

 type than any found in the Trichoptera ; the forewing does not possess 

 a separate M4 ; and the hind wing has a definite frenulum. In all these 

 points this family is definitely Lepidopterous. Neither the larval form 

 nor the imaginal mouth-parts are Trichopterous, so that there is really 

 no justification for so radical a change, which must remain as a serious 

 blemish in a fine work. 



The most complete and detailed chapter is that upon the wings of the 

 Xeuroptera, in which much splendid original work is displayed. But 

 here, more than anywhere else, the mistake of trying to work back to 

 the supposed ancestral type is most evident, and a reference to the 

 known Triassic and Liassic fossils, almost all of which are closely 

 and densely veined, should have convinced the author that his theory 

 was wrong in detail. Consequently, we have the statement made that 

 Hemerobius is an archaic genus and Megalomus highly specialized, 

 whereas the reverse is certainly the case ; the Mantispidae are dealt 

 with quite "in the air," instead of with their close allies, the Chry- 

 sopidae and Berothidae ; and the Apochrysidae likewise. 



In contrast with this, the painstaking working-out of the het^roneur- 

 ism in the Myrmeleontoid families, without the aid of the pupal 

 tracheation of the older families, is worthy of the highest praise; 

 more recent studies of these pupae in Australia show Comstock's 

 work to be correct in almost every particular. 



There is one striking omission in the book, viz., the neglect to 

 utilize the wing-trichiation as an aid to homologies. The importance 

 of this cannot be over-estimated, especially in those orders in which 

 the pupal tracheation fails, as in the Mecoptera, Trichoptera and 

 Diptera. This failure accounts for two serious errors, viz., the in- 

 terpretation of the limits of the media and cubitus in Merope and also 

 in Rhyphus (and consequently in all Diptera). In both cases, an 

 oblique vein carrying strong macrotrichia has been interpreted as a 

 cross-vein, when, as a matter of fact, it is the basal piece of a branch 

 of a main vein. 



It should be noted that the author tacitly throws overboard the 

 untenable "Meyrick's Law," which he espoused and christened in a 

 much earlier work. Nearly all the original work in this book is a 

 witness of the fallacy of this supposed "law." But perhaps it would 

 have been better to have stated definitely the author's changed con- 

 ception. It is harder to explain the failure of the author to deal with 

 the unbranched radius theory in the Order Odonata : whether he agrees 

 with it or not, he should surely not have ignored it completely, as he 

 has done. 



But when all these criticisms have been made, it remains to be said 

 that the book is a magnificent piece of work, and well worthy of the 

 labor that its talented author has spent upon it. To all entomologists 



