REVIEWS. 211 
dimorphism in the female sex. Sometimes there is a third brood. 
Raynor, quoted by Tutt (British Lepidoptera, vol. ix., p. 392), states 
that the females of this third brood are not of the spring form, as 
might be expected, but of the dark bordered summer form. We our- 
selves have found the same, and this bears out the deductions quoted 
above. 
Mr. A. Sich contributes another of his most important life histories, 
this time of Tortriv viridana. His detection of the method of oviposi- 
tion and of the sexual dimorphism of the larva is beyond praise. Patience 
is not given to every man to work out the life cycles of these small 
creatures, and we may well hope that Mr. Sich may be long spared to 
add many more such histories to those which have already proceeded 
from his pen. 
To the same author we owe a paper on “ Limacology, or Slug- 
study.” This came upon us as a bit of a shock, for we were un- 
acquainted with this evidence of the extent of Mr. Sieh’s versatility. 
What a nerve it must require to study slugs! But here is another of 
those neglected groups, and we welcome it. Doubtless slugs have 
charms (indeed we know such), and doubtless the more carefully 
studied the greater the attractions. 
Mr. Bunnett has a most interesting paper on the “ Dimorphic larva 
of the Maple Aphis.” We remember, far away in ‘the sixties,” the 
popularity of these creatures as microscopic objects; but have never 
before seen an account of their nature. We would like to thank Mr. 
Bunnett personally for the pleasure and enlightenment which his in- 
vestigations have shed upon this old, old puzzle. 
The appearance of a paper by M. Constant Sano, on the ‘ Meta- 
morphosis of Geotrupes stercorarius,”’ fills up a gap in our knowledge of 
this species, and will as such be welcomed by all Coleopterists, while 
it reminds all of us of the ‘‘ Kntente,” and affords an opportunity 
of welcoming a distinguished Belgian scientist to our hospitable 
shores. 
The continuation of Mr. W. J. Lucas’ paper on the Orthoptera adds 
the ‘‘ British Cockroaches” and the ‘“ British Crickets”’ to the sub- 
divisions of which he has treated, and completes the series. It is no 
small advantage to the members of the “South London”’ to possess in 
their Proceedings an account of one whole Order as represented in 
Britain. 
The paper on “The Kuropean species of the genus Melanargia”’ is, 
we sorrowfully confess, beyond our powers. Such are the limitations 
of those who confine their interests to purely British species. But we 
may add that we gasp in satisfaction at seeing once more the galathea 
of Stainton and of Newman our youthful pabulum. Why was it ever 
given up? lHven Staudinger in his last edition clings on to it, adding 
‘“r(ecte) yalatea’”’ in brackets. 
We notice a similar case on p. 81, where Mr. H. J. 
Turner complains that he cannot trace the origin of the change 
from (Aphantopus) hyperantus of Linneus into hyperanthes. Ob! 
those names! And oh! how one would like to be in Sicily sometimes. 
And why are some places so much more fayoured by butterflies than 
others? This thought recurs on reading Mr. R. Adkin’s notes on 
«The Autumn Butterflies of Hastbourne.” It is most interesting to 
