170 Bibliographical Notices. 
Puate VILL. 
Fig. 1. Lepralia striatula, n. sp. la. Ocecium. 
Fig. 2. Mucronella vultw, n. sp. 
Fig. 3. Mucronella diaphana, MacGillivray, form armata. 3a. Ocecium. 
Fig. 4. Rhabdozoum Wilsoni, n. gen. & sp. A shoot, of the natural size.. 
4a. The same. Portion of a celliferous stem, magnified, show- 
ing the arrangement of the zocecia, avicularia, and spines. 46. 
Summit of one of the chitinous rods, showing the annulation, 
the cup-like expansion, and the basal portion of the upper celli- 
ferous stems. This figure is less highly magnified than the rest. 
4e¢. Zocecia, with ocecia. 
Fig. 5. Mucronella rotundata, n. sp. 
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES. 
The Student's List of British Coleoptera, with Synoptic Tables of the 
Families and Genera. Compiled by Francis P. Pascoz. Small 
8vo. London: Taylor and Francis, 1882. 
In this little volume Mr. Pascoe has gone back to his old love, and, 
after instructing us all in general zoology, contents himself with the 
more modest task of cataloguing the British Beetles. But, just as 
his little treatise on ‘ Zoological Classification’ was one of the most 
useful manuals that we possess, so the ‘Student’s List of British 
Coleoptera’ offers its readers a good deal more than is promised in 
its title. As regards the list itself, indeed, our author makes but 
little claim to originality. ‘“‘ Lists,” he says, “ are necessarily com- 
pilations; and in this one I have almost entirely depended on the 
authority of previous compilers ;” but there is a certain amount of 
criticism that must be exercised even in the preparation of a cata- 
logue of the names of British Beetles, hackneyed as the task is, and 
we know enough of Mr. Pascoe’s work to feel sure that this part of 
his labour has been conscientiously performed. 
As to the principles on which he has acted in connexion with 
vexed questions of priority, Mr. Pascoe has some remarks in his 
preface which merit attention. He complains, and with much jus- 
tice, of the confusion introduced by the disturbance of old-established 
names of species and genera to make room for others of longer 
standing, the precise significance of which must often be uncertain 
from the imperfect manner in which species were generally charac- 
terized in the early days of descriptive entomology. To a very con- 
siderable extent we are prepared to go with him, and to joi in any 
protest that he may make against superseding well-known names 
upon light grounds, even in cases where it can be demonstrated that 
the name to be revived undoubtedly applies to the same species 
that has for years borne another name of later date. But we are 
not prepared to go the whole length that he seems inclined to do, 
and to set up a sort of statute of limitations in matters of nomen- 
