Review of Emmons’s Agriculture of New York. 249 
’ 
12-punctata, and on p. 134, reappears as ‘ Adimonia e 
diately following the description p. 134, is placed Lema trivittata, 
» thus putting it in a group to which it does not belong. Per con- 
tra, the same insect appears on page 129, as ‘ Crioceris (or Lema) 
trilineata (Oliv. ). 
Pl. 17, fig. 6, ‘ Cicindela campestris’ is C. 6-guttata; we are 
at a loss to understand the motive for introducing the European 
C. campestris in a Zoology so well provided with species of the 
genus. If another figure was wanted to fill up the plate, there 
are several American species well worthy of the place. 
Pl. 17, fig. 14, ‘ Cicindela ,’ isthe well known G. unipune- 
tata, but probably, to quote the words of a former collaborator on 
the Survey, is ‘ extra-limital. 
Pl. 17, fig. 15, ‘ Cicindela? (Maryland), is Megacephala vir- 
ginica, and is so noted in the corrections on page 257, with many 
others not introduced in this review. 
19, fig. 9, ‘ Anisodactylus agricollis’ (!!) 
Pl. 20, fig. 8, ‘ Chlenius lithophilus.’ Particularly bad, if it 
be the species intended. 
PI.20, fig. 11:4 Omophron labratum’ is O, americanum Dej., 
and fig. 12, ‘var. tesselatum’, is nothing like O. tesselatum Say. 
The forms are strangely caricatured. 
Pl. 21, fig. 4 ‘ Lampyris ungulata’ should be L. angnilata, 
and fig. 5, ‘ZL. scinfillaris’ ought to be L. scintillans: neither 
fig. 7 or 8 belong to Dictyoptera, but if not placed in Digrapha, 
they should have been left where they were found, in Lycus. 
l. 21, fig. 9, ‘ Dicelus dilatatus,’ and fig. 13, ‘ D. elongatus.’ 
These have been reversed in some w y: the references in the 
text (p. 49) are right. Fig. 10 is anything, rather than Spheero- 
ders stenostomus. ~ Em 
. 23, in two places we find Necrophagus for Necrophorus. 
Pl. 25, fig. 3, § Platycerus piceus ; for another insect under 
the same name, vide pl. 12; fig. 5, ‘ Osmoderma scaber’ seems 
Intended for O. eremicola; fig. 6, ‘ Pyrochroa flabellata’ is very 
- 31, fig. 1, ‘ Cantharis atrata’ is a duplicate of pl. 25, fig. 4. 
Each figure appears to be worse than the other, but the strongest 
impression is left by the one last looked at. Can fig. 4 be * 
ophagzus Hecate’? Fig. 8, ‘ Hister conformis’ is H. abbre- 
Viatus Fabr, ‘H. conformis Dej.,’ belongs to the genus Sapri- 
hus, and was described and figured in the Boston Journal of Nat- 
ural History, so that no excuse can be offered for the confusion. 
Fig. 10, not ‘ Tenebrio molitor, but a species of Iphthinus; fig, 
13, « Copris ——’ is C. anaglyptica Say. 
‘Stoop Suhtes, Vol. KIX, No. 64—March, 1855. 32 
e 
