Insects. 8023 



sible to say where the line should be drawn between descriptions which did and those 

 which did not entitle a name to priority ; that what one entomologist would consider 

 to be a good description, by another would be considered faulty and untruslworihy ; 

 that what in one age was a sufficient description became in a subsequent a^e insuffi- 

 cient, from the discovery of new species, and other reasons ; that the consequence of a 

 strict application of Dr. Schaum's rule would be the immediate abolition from our 

 lists of all or most of the Linnean and Fabrician names ; and lastly, that Dr.Schaum 

 had in some degree shown the impracticability of his rule by himself not having acted 

 up to it. In reference to some criticisms, contained in the paper on the descriptions 

 in Stephens' works, and in Mr. Hope's paper on Coccinella in the ' Zoological Mis- 

 cellany,' Prof. Westwood remarked that Dr. Schaum appeared to have forgotten that 

 Stephens described his genera in two ways— /«/, a few words of descriptron to each 

 genus, pointing out the principal chancters ; secondly, a synoptical table of the genera 

 in each family, wherein the most minute characters were noticed. As to Mr. Hope's 

 descriptions, he might mention that the paper on Coccinella, as publi.shed, was a mere 

 abstract of what Mr. Hope wrote ; he knew it to be a fact that when the paper was 

 written it was, for some reason or other, inconvenient to give it at length in 

 the 'Zoological Miscellany,' and the elaborate descriptions of Mr. Hope were cut 

 down to the meagre half-dozens of words which had incurred the censure of 

 Dr. Schaum. 



A new Part of the ' Transactions,' Vol. i., 3rd series. Part I., was on the table, 

 ready for distribution among the members and subscribers.— J. W. D. 



Note on a Species of (Estrus.— At the March meeting of the Northern Entomolo- 

 gical Society, Mr. B. Cooke described a fly (taken by Mr. James Cooj-er, during the 

 summer of 1854, in Perthshire), under the name of (Estrus biangulatus. At that time 

 Mr. Bracy Clark said that this insect was parasitic on the reindeer. He had how- 

 ever, lately been informed by Mr. Haliday that " It is stated in the ' Transactions' of 

 the Zoological and Botanical Society of Vienna, 1858, pp. 385-414 and 449—470, 

 in a paper by Brauer, giviug much information on the natural history of the known 

 European CEstridas, and adding five new species lo the sixteen known before, that the 

 female of Cephenemyia is viviparous; C. Trompe is the species appropriated to the 

 reindeer; C. pecta and C. rufibarbis to the red deer ; C. stimulator, which I believe 

 your specimen belongs to, probably to the roebuck, and that it is the parent of the 

 faucal bolts in this animal." Mr. Cooke said that if this is the fact the insect is indi- 

 genous to this country, and any collectors visiting Scotland should look out for 

 specimens. 



Sugar and Sallows.— As it may not be known to many that the " sus-ar-hait" can 

 be advantageously used when the sallows are in or near their bloom, I'send yuu the 

 result of an experiment which quite exceeded my e*pectations. On the 3rd instant, 

 finding that the sallows in my favourite locality were very backward, although otherl 

 not lar distant were in full flower, I adopted the expedient of " sugaring " the trees 

 near at hand, which were soon crowded with hybernating Noctua and Orthosids 

 Whilst busy boxmg Taeniocampa munda I was joined by my friend Mr. Birks, who 

 had been unprofitably examining the sallows. We remained together, and during the 



