MELANIC VARIATION IN LEPIDOPTERA. 1 39 



mentioned as having published papers thereon in the Journal 

 of the Linnean Society. 



Palaeontologists have not been idle. Mr. Hudleston's 

 papers in the Geological Magazine, on the oolitic fossils, are a 

 valuable contribution by one of your members to a knowledge 

 of the geology of Yorkshire ; and Mr. J. W. Davis has recently 

 published an elaborate monograph of the British Fossil Fishes. 



Entomologists are never idle. Mr. Porritt'slist of the Lepi- 

 doptera of Yorkshire is one of the most valuable county lists 

 that has yet been published. If, as in part a Norfolk man, I 

 claim also a high approval of Mr. Barrett's Norfolk catalogue, 

 I shall be paying no less generous tribute to the patient observa- 

 tion and industrious verification which has been brought to 

 bear upon the Yorkshire list by its author, who is much entitled 

 to our thanks and congratulations. 



I believe I am right in saying that at this moment York- 

 shire can boast of possessing more local Natural History Socie- 

 ties than any other county in England; even exceeding in their 

 number, those of the whole of Scotland. In comparing the 

 results, so far as the addition of new species to our British lists 

 can enable us to estimate the work done, you may congratulate 

 yourselves upon a goodly average since the year 1855. 



In Lepidoptera, with twenty-six additions, you are only three 

 species behind the number attained by Kent, which has been the 

 most successful county. Surrey, Hampshire, Norfolk, Scotland, 

 and Lancashire following at no great distance, with 23, 20, 19, 

 18, and 13 respectively. 



In Coleoptera, the London district heads the list with no 

 less than 60 additions, Scotland claims 56, Surrey 42, Kent 39, 

 and Yorkshire 26. 



I am not prepared to vouch for the absolute correctness of 

 these figures, which have been somewhat hastily extracted, but 



