BRITISH LEPIDOPTEEA. — ME. BATESOn's EEVIEW. 287 



far as the review is favourable probably the vast majority of the 

 subscribers will be with him. In the last two paragraphs, however, 

 opinion is likely to be greatly divided, and it would be well to know 

 the views of others. Mr. Bateson here opens up the question as to 

 whether certain general biological questions included in the systematic 

 part of the work, should not have been "fully digested and arranged," 

 and then dealt with in separate chapters. I suspect that Mr. Bateson 

 here refers more particularly to the details relating to gynandroixior- 

 phism, hybridity, and such-like questions. Considerable material 

 relating to the former is dealt Avith in the chapter on the Antheocerides 

 in vol. i, and, again, in vol. ii, much detail is gone into relating to the 

 Lachneides. The reviewer would have, I take it, these details collected 

 together in a general chapter on gynandromorphism. Now, however 

 desirable this may be, it is necessary to ask: (1) Whether such special 

 matter relating to a special group can consistently and with satisfaction 

 be divorced from that group ? (2) Whether the material is yet avail- 

 able on which to found a general chapter on this subject of sufficient 

 importance to class with the other general chapters in this work ? 

 Would it not be better done when the detailed material of a number of 

 other superfamilies (including the butterflies) has been worked 

 through ? The amassed material must of necessity be so much greater 

 and the generalisations obtained be more valuable and far-reaching. 

 Mr. Bateson goes on to say that "it is no doubt impossible for a very 

 busy man to carry out such a task " (the task of digesting and arranging 

 in a special chapter). One suspects that if it were the general wish of 

 his subscribers, Mr. Tutt would not find it impossible, and, indeed, 

 would overcome the difficulty. The question uppermost in the author's 

 mind was doubtless whether the one or the other course was the more 

 valuable, and, as one of the subscribers, I am certainly inclined to 

 uphold the course the author has chosen. We shall all no doubt be 

 greatly interested in such a general chapter, with all the scientific 

 results obtained, if one be pubHshed in a future volume, but there can 

 be no harm in knowing beforehand the units that are to build up the 

 whole. 



Another general biological problem possibly included by Mr. 

 Bateson in his criticism would be that of hybridism. There is much 

 material relating thereto already in the chapters on the Anthrocekides 

 and Lachneides. Here again the same general remark holds good. 

 The amount of material that is sure to be forthcoming when such 

 groups as the Sphingids, Saturniids, and Notodonts are worked through, 

 is certain to be very great, and we can confidently expect that very 

 much will then appear that has never yet been seen in print. One 

 enquires also, whether the author should exclude the considerations of 

 the material at h and when he was studying those superfamilies j ust named, 

 and reserve it till he feels safe in dealing with it in connection with 

 similar material that he may in future collect in his study of other 

 superfamilies ? Should we not rather be thankful that such general 

 matter as has already been worked out, is Avhere it can readily be 

 found, than stored away awaiting development, and so, in no small 

 measure, risk the possibility of never being published at all ? 

 Would it not have been better to have asked that when a 

 convenient time had arrived such subjects as " gynandromorphism " 

 and "hybridism," and other general biological problems, should have 



