194 
NATURE 
? ‘ 
| uly 6, 1871 

1 
work to which I can direct your attention as giving the fauna of 
a particular district, with the geographical range of such of the 
species as are likewise found elsewhere. R.M ‘Lachlan, who in 
1865 had published (Trans. Ent. Soc. ser. 3, v.) a Monograph of 
the British Caddis-flies, gave in 1868 (Trans. Ent. Soc. for 1868) 
a Monograph of the British Neuroptera Planipenna, but little is 
there said of the European range of our species. In 1867 
(Entom. Monthly Mag. iii.) Mr. M‘Lachlan, who is one of our 
most philosophical writers, gave a Monograph of the British 
Psocidze, and he there says with reference even to their distribu- 
tion in our own country, ‘As a rule, I have not mentioned 
special localities; these insects have been so little collected 
that an enumeration here of known or recorded localities 
would probably appear ridiculous in a few years.’ The Rev. 
T. A. Marshall has given (Entom. Monthly Mag. i. to iii.) 
an essay towards a knowledge of the British Homoptera, in 
which occasionally allusion is made to the European distribution 
of our British species. 
“‘The position of the Insect-fauna of Britain may be thus 
stated: the late J. F. Stephens commenced in 1827 a systematic 
descriptive work of all the orders of British Insects as ‘Il us- 
trations of British Entomology ;’ it ceased to appear after 1835, 
until a supplementary volume came out in 1846. The Lepidop- 
tera, Coleoptera, Orthoptera, Neuroptera were wholly, the 
Hymenoptera partly, done, the Hemiptera and Diptera altogether 
left out. In 1839 Mr. Stephens published, in a more compen- 
dious form, a ‘ Manual of British Beetles.’ In 1849 an attempt 
was made to supply the gaps in the British Entomology left by 
Stephens, and a scheme of a series of volumes called ‘ Insecta 
Britannica’ was elaborated, in which Mr. F. Walker was to 
undertake the Diptera, Mr. W. S. Dallas the Hemiptera, and 
grat progress having been made in our knowledge of the smaller 
moths since 1835, I undertook to write a volume on the Tineina. 
This scheme was so far carried out, that th ee volumes on the Bri- 
tish Diptera by Mr. F. Walker (assisted by the late A. H. Haliday) 
appeared in 1851, 1852, and 1856, and my volume on the British 
Tineina in 1854. In 1859 another great group of the smaller 
moths was described by S. J. Wilkinson in a volume entitled 
‘The Briish Tortrices.’ The British Hemiptera, not having 
been done by Mr. Dallas, were undertaken by Messrs. Dougtas 
and Scott for the Ray Society ; and in 1865 a 4’0 volume was 
issued, containing the Hemiptera, Heteroptera, leaving the Ho- 
moptera for a second volume, still in progress. Even in this 
elaborate work little or nothing is said of the geographical dis- 
tribution out of Brtain of our British species. The same 
will apply to the late J. F. Dawson’s ‘Geodephaga Britan- 
nica,” published in 1854 ; to Westwood’s “ Butterflies of Great 
Britain,’ pub'ished in 1855; and to E. Newman’s ‘Illustrated 
Natural History of British Moths,’ published in 1869. 
*T believe I do not at all exaggerate if I say that for many 
years Entomology was pursued in this country with an insularity 
and a narrow-mindedness of which a botanist can scarecly 
form a conception. The system of only collecting British 
Insects was pursued to such an extent, that it was almost 
a crime to have a non-British insect in one’s possession ; 
if accidentally placed in one’s cabinet it might depreciate 
the value of the entire collection, for Mr. Samuel Stevens 
can assure you that the value of the specimens depends very 
much upon their being indubitably and unmistakeably British. 
A specimen caught in Kent which would fetch 2/. would not be 
worth 2s, if caught in Normandy. I satirised this practice several 
years since inthe ‘ Entomologists’ Weekly Intelligence’ (vol. v. 
and 1858, articles ‘ Jeddo’ and ‘Insularity’), but it is yet far 
from extinct” 
Perfectly concurring in Mr. Stainton’s observations in the last 
paragraph, I would however add that there are purposes for 
which a local or geological collection distinct from the general 
one may be of great use, and such a collection would be much 
impaired by the introduction of stray foreign specimens. Ina 
local museum, a separate room devoted exclusively to the pro- 
ductions of the locality is very instructive with reference to the 
history of that locality, and I have seen several such spoiled by 
the admission of exotic specimens, giving the visitor false impres- 
sions, which it takes time to remove. But it is never from such 
an exclusive collection that the fauna or flora of the district can 
be satisfactorily worked out, or that any branch of Zoology or 
Botany can be successfully taught. 
Mr. Stainton adds, ‘‘It has been suggested to me that those 
who have critically studied the distinctions between closely allied 
ypecies have rarely the time to work out in addition their geogra- 
phical range, and that those who might work up the latter subject 

might fail in their good intentions for want of a proper knowledge 
of species.” Upon this I would observe that, in the due appre- 
ciation of a species of its limits and connections, its geozraphical 
range and the various forms it assumes in different parts of its 
area are an essential element ; and it appears to me that the 
neglect of this and other general characters is one reason why 
many able naturalists, who have devoted their lives to the critical 
distinction of races of the lowest grades unduly raised to the rank 
of species, have really contributed so little to any science but that 
of sorting and naming collections. On the other hand, the study 
of geographical range without a proper knowledge of species is 
little more than pure speculation. Division of labour carried too 
fac tends to narrow the mind, and rather to delay than advance 
the healthy progress of science. - 
Mr. Stainton informs me that ‘‘there has just appeared a 
monograph of the Ephemeridze, by the Rev. A. E Eaton (Trans. 
Entom. Soc. 1871), treating of those insects throughout the globe ; 
and when any species are noticed which occur in this country, 
their entire geographical range is noticed. It is altogether a 
valuable paper, on account of the thoroughness with which it 
seems to be done.” 
Since I last noticed our biological publications two valuable 
and beau‘ifully illustrated but costly Ornithological works, 
Sclater and Salvin’s ‘‘ Exotic Ornithology,” and Sharpe’s 
“*Monograph of the Alcedinide,” have been completed, and 
various Memoirs by Flower, Mivart, Parker, and others, have 
considerably advanced our knowledge of the comparative 
anatomy of various groups of Mammalia. In our own country 
also, as well as on the Continent, the biology of various distant 
lands has continued to be worked out in Memoirs or indepen- 
dent publications, which [ had contemplated noticing in suc- 
cession ; but time obliges me now to stop, and defer to a future 
occasion the compilation of the notes I had collected on North 
Sei, Australian, and other Monographs, Faunas, and 
loras. 


SCIENTIFIC SERIALS 
THE Geological Magazine for June (No. $4) commences with 
some notes on Crinoids by Mr. John Rofe, relating rather to the 
zoological than to the geological aspects of that class of 
animals. Mr. Rofe describes some experiments made on 
recent Crinoids by treating them with solution of potash 
or muriatic acid, from which he arrives at the conclusion 
that their hard parts are invested by a membrane giving 
them a certain degree of flexibility, a general position 
which few naturalists will be inclined to dispute. But the details 
of structure described by Mr. Rofe will be found of much in- 
terest. In his concluding remarks he endeavours to show an ap- 
proximation between the Crinoids and the Tunicata, which, to say 
the least of it, is very doubtful.—Mr. S. Allport publishes a note 
on the microscopic structure and composition of a rock from 
the ‘* Wolf Rock” off the Land’s End, which he identifies with 
phonolite, and justly protests against the system which gives dif- 
ferent names to rocks identical in mineral composition because 
they happen to be of different geological ages —Mr. D. Mackin- 
tosh describes the drifts of the west and south borders of the 
Lake district, with especial reference to their great granitic dis- 
persions which he believes have taken place; and Messrs. C. and 
A. Bell discuss the divisions of the English Crags as indicated 
by their invertebrate fauna. They propose as the result of their 
investigations, to divide the Crag into Upper, Middle, and 
Lower ; the Upper including the Norwich, and the upper part 
of the so-called Red Crag ; the Middle, the remainder of the Red 
Crag; and the Lower, the Coralline Crag. The last paper con- 
sists of a comparison of the metamorphic rocks of Scotland and 
Galway, by Mr. G. H. Kinahan. The first and last of these 
papers are illustrated with plates. 
The second part of Tome xiliii. of the Bulletin de la Société Impé= 
riales des Naturalistes de Moscou. completing the first half volume 
for 1870, is the last portion of this publication that has yet reached 
this country. It contains the continuation of M. Ferd. von 
Herder’s notice of the monopetalous plants collected by G. 
Radde and others (Plante Raddeane Monofetale) in Eastern 
Siberia, the Amurland, Kamtschatka, and Russian America, 
and includes references to numerous species of Composi'z.—M. 
N. Erschoff communicates a note upon the Lepidoptera of 
Western Siberia, containing a list of species from the town of 
Omsk.— A Russian paper on the Oligocheetal Annelid, 
