May 28, 1897.] 



SCIENCE. 



studies known, and one which yields abundant 

 fiicts of philosophical interest, has the reputa- 

 tion in many quarters of being excessively dry 

 and unprofitable. It may be laid down as a 

 law that no one can take a really intelligent 

 view of a group of insects while ignoring all 

 those outside factors which influence its being 

 and have made it what it is. Such a one may 

 become skillful in determining species, but he 

 is like a collector of coins, who should know 

 perfectly every kind of coin which he possessed, 

 but neither knows nor cares when or by whom 

 the coins were made nor what the figures and 

 inscriptions upon them meant. 



Thirdly, it is perfectly clear that entomolog- 

 ical works of the best kind can no longer be 

 written by one man unaided. Dr. Howard 

 could by no means have given us so satisfactory 

 a treatise had he not been helped by his several 

 assistants and investigators. Such help is gladly 

 rendered by entomologists to one another, when 

 it is known that it will be judiciously used and 

 justly credited. It is a pleasure to assist such 

 a man as Dr. Howard, and it is to be hoped 

 that all who can cooperate usefully with him 

 will make haste to do so. For while many of 

 us cannot by ourselves write profitably on 

 various subjects, we may together aflTord the 

 materials, which, put together and added to by 

 a competent person, will result in the produc- 

 tion of an admirable treatise. Those who, like 

 Dr. Howard, have shown that they can be 

 trusted to use properly the materials or infor- 

 mation supplied to them should receive strong 

 support; while others (there are such) who per- 

 sistently ignore field notes and biological data, 

 or do not quote those data correctly, out of 

 sheer carelessness, should not be supplied with 

 material. 



When the writer began to describe western 

 hymenoptera he was solemnly warned that, not 

 having access to the type specimens, he would 

 be very likely to make synonyms. So far, he 

 believes there are not more synonyms among 

 his names than among an equal number of those 

 proposed by Eastern entomologists — those de- 

 tected on sending the types east are very few, 

 but even if there were, he believes he would be 

 justified, because he gives the exact conditions 

 under which the insects were taken, while most 



of those described in the East are credited 

 vaguely to 'Colo.', ' N. Mex.', etc., to the 

 extreme vexation of one working on the fauna 

 of this region. It is true, of course, that the 

 material so described has been mostly sent in 

 with inadequate labels, but the writer knows 

 cases enough where the available data were not 

 quoted ; and certainly had any serious efibrt 

 been made to get professional collectors to cite 

 localities, etc., the information would have 

 been forthcoming. This is shown by the fact 

 that Mr. W. H. Edwards almost always man- 

 ages to get excellent details. Compare Mr. 

 Edwards' accounts of the butterflies taken by 

 Bruce with the records of moths collected by the 

 same entomologist but published by others. 

 Compare also the different reports on the St. 

 Vincent material collected by Mr. H. H. Smith.* 



Several other matters might be touched 

 upon. How interesting it is to read of the 

 indirect influence of the sparrows on the Orgyia, 

 of the fluctuation of the several insects from 

 year to year, of the way in which the parasites 

 abounded in different degrees in different 

 parts of the city, and a dozen other things. 

 The inadequacy of a bald record that one insect 

 infests another is clearly brought out. Thus, 

 while it is correct to say that Apanteles hyphan- 

 trise and Chalcis ovata both infest the Orgyia 

 and Syphantria, they infest them in utterly dif- 

 ferent proportions. 



There is little or nothing to criticise ad- 

 versely. Theronia fiilvescens, credited to 

 Brull6, was, I believe, described by Cresson. 

 On p. 52 it is said that the dipterous parasites 

 apparently had no hyperparasites. But Semi- 

 teles toivnsendi was surely such, as is duly indi- 

 cated on p. 31. 



The promptness of publication is very much 

 to be commended. The Bulletin was trans- 



* In the report on the Diptera, Tr. Ent. Soo. Lend., 

 1896, Professor Aldrich, reporting on the Dolioho- 

 podidse and PhoridEe, gives the altitude, etc., while 

 Professor Williston, reporting on the other families, 

 generally fails to give any such data. It cannot be 

 supposed that Mr. Smith carefully labelled two fam- 

 ilies of flies, aud veas quite careless about the rest ! 

 One of the individuals who worked up a group of the 

 St. Vincent fauna (not flies) confessed to me that he 

 threw away Smith's minute-locality labels. 



