Vol. xxiii] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 281 
Indies, 195, liv, 351-366. Webster, F. M.—The alfalfa gall midge 
(Aspondylia miki), 7, Circ. No. 147. 
COLEOPTERA. Bernhauer, M.—Zur Staphylinedenfauna von 
Sudamerika (9, Beitrag), 38, xxxi, 68-82. Coblentz, W. W—A 
physical study of the firefly, 259, Pub. No. 164, 45 pp. Fenyes, A— 
Remarks on “Gnypeta thoms,” 4, 1912, 105-112. Reitter, E—Ueber- 
sicht der untergattungen und der artengruppen des genus “Otior- 
rhynchus,” 38, xxxi, 45-67. Spaeth, F.—Beschreibung neuer Cassi- 
diden nebst synonimischen bemerkungen, 44, Ixi, 241-277. Webster, 
F. M.—The so-called “curlew bug” (Sphenophorus callosus), 7, Bul. 
No. 95, 53-71. Wickham, H. F.—On some fossil Rhynchophorous 
Coleoptera from Florissant, Colo., 153, xxxi, 41-55 (x). 
HYMENOPTERA. Cockerell, T. D. A—Names applied to bees 
of the genus “Osmia” found in No. Am., 50, xlii, 215-225. Fernald, 
H. T.— Description of certain species of wasps of the family Spheci- 
dae, 50, xlii, 257-259. Ferton, C.—Notes detachees sur l’instinct des 
H. Melliferes et ravisseurs (7e Serie), 86, Ixxx, 351-412. Graenicher, 
S.—Bees of northwestern Wisconsin, 257, 1, 221-249 (x). Hough- 
ton, C. O.—The blackberry leaf miner (Scolioneura capitalis), 250, 
Bul. No. 87, 10-15. Phillips & White—Historical notes on the 
causes of bee diseases, 7, Bul. No. 98. Schmiedeknecht, O.—Opus- 
cula Ichneumonologica. Fasc. xxx. Tryphoninae, pp. 2323-2402. 
Recent Envtomotocicar LitERATURE. 
Last year (Annals Ent. Soc. Amer. IV., p. 192) the writer suggested 
a few simple rules to govern entomological publications; rules which 
might, it seemed, be made to apply to all taxonomic papers, with the 
result of avoiding much inconvenience and confusion hereafter. It 
was thought that in time Entomologists might come to be as exact 
in presenting their taxonomic results as botanists are today, and this 
without any great difficulty or effort. The faults intended to be con- 
nected by the rules referred to result wholly from poor methods or 
indifference to matters which experience shows to be important. Thus, 
in describing a new genus, it is as easy to cite a type species as not; 
in describing a new species, it is perfectly simple to indicate the type 
locality. To compare new genera and species with their allies, or state 
explicitly the characters separating them from others, is a matter of 
more difficulty; but certainly no one should describe a new genus or 
species if he has not made the necessary comparisons, and having made 
them, it should be easy to state them. 
In order to call attention to existing deficiencies, and so perhaps 
stimulate reform, it is proposed to enumerate from time to time re- 
cent publications which fail to come up to desired standards. Many 
or most of these papers are of course extremely valuable contributions 
