250 Review of Eemmons’s Agriculture of New York. 
Pl. 34, fig. 1, ‘ Podabrus modestus’ is Telephorus carolinus, 
What can fig. 2 be? It is marked ‘ Stenocorus cinctus,’ but the 
resemblance is not apparent. Fig. 3, ‘ T’elephorus ——’ is Nacer- 
des melanura, an Cdemerite described by Linnzus, found in all 
our cities, and now carried by commerce from Europe over the 
greater part of the globe. Fig.7, ‘Saperda ’ we have already 
had on pl. 16, as S. calearata. Fig. 8, ‘ Monohammus pusillus’ 
is Graphisurus fasciatus. Fig. 9, ‘ Cerambyx (undescribed)’ is 
Dorcaschema nigrum, long ago described by Say. Fig. 11, ‘ Lep- 
tura ——’ is Toxotus cylindricollis Say, alsoa well known species. 
Having thus mentioned some of the more conspicuous errors 
in the plates, and referring for others to the list on page 257 of 
the text, we may now turn our attention to that portion of the 
work, 
It is, as was stated before, mostly made up of extracts from 
other works; with what skill these are placed together will appear 
shortly. In the mean time we regret to be compelled to call 
attention to the fact, that while on page 25, it is stated that the 
anatomical figures have been copied mostly from the Naturalists’ 
Library, we find the plates (A, B and C), on which these figures 
appear, credited to E. Emmons, Jr. Could not the lithographer be 
trusted to make the copies? Why should the expense of repeating 
the drawings be thrown on the State ?- That under a liberal grant 
from the Legislature, such as has been expended in the New 
York Survey, our entomology should be illustrated by copies of 
foreign figures of foreign species is at least discreditable; but 
what can be said, when an author permits a person in his em- 
ployment, to affix his name to these foreign labors? 
Continuing our exposition of errors, we find that on page 31, 
the reader would be inclined to believe that Mr. McLeay has di- 
vided all beetles into 1, Geodephaga and 2, Hydradephaga: this 
is not so. 
Page 35, for ‘ Cicindela guttata’ read C. sexguttata. 
Page 39, Div. 5 of Carabide, ‘ Bembidiides’ are placed under 
those having the ‘anterior tibia without a notch near the tip’: 
on page 53, a contrary statement is made, that ‘the anterior tibie 
are always notched on their insides near their tips. 7 
Page 41, the explosive power characteristic of Brachinus and 
closely allied genera, is here extended to the whole section of 
Brachinides as defined by Westwood. 
Page 42, ‘Polystichus (Bar.)’ is placed as a synonym of Galer- 
ita, and the description of the former copied from Westwood. 
Polystichus was never applied to North American species, but was 
established by Bonelli (not Bar.) upon certain small European 
_ Msects, previously placed in Galerita. ; 
_ The system of arrangement pursued by the author, will be 
better illustrated by an example, than by any criticism. Com- 
ee. 
iA ge, 
