230 MB. B. M'LACHLAK on ISTEW SPECIES ETC. OP jSTEITBOPTEBA. 



New G-enera and Species, &c., of Neuropterous Insects ; and a 

 revision of Mr. P. Walker's British Museum Catalogue of Neu- 

 roptera, part ii. (1853), as far as tlie end of the genus Myrme- 

 leon. By Eobeet M'Lachlan, F.L.S. 



[Read March 21, 1867.] 



(With one Plate.) 



I OPPEB this paper as a contribution to a knowledge of the much- 

 neglected Order Neuroptera. The insects noticed herein all pertain 

 to that Order in its most perfect sense, all being Flanipennia, to 

 which division it is probable the term JSfeuroptera should be alone 

 applied. The number of students of these insects being so very 

 limited, and the collected material as yet so small, render any 

 attempt to to work out the analogies, in a manner approaching 

 the minuteness effected in the Coleoptera and higher forms of 

 Symenoptera, absolutely impossible ; and the generic outline re- 

 cently published by Hagen in his ' Hemerobidarum Synopsis 

 Synonymica,' while of the utmost value as a foundation, shows 

 how little is yet known, and how great are the difficulties of the 

 subject. I have here not attempted any important redistribution 

 or division of existing genera, and the few described as new are 

 for the most part based on newly discovered forms. ISTor is this 

 paper at all exhaustive, so far as the materials in my own and 

 other collections are concerned. Many interesting species exist 

 in the collection of the British Museum which time and oppor- 

 tunity have not enabled me to notice, and I believe the Oxford 

 Museum contains as many or more undescribed novelties. 



I look upon the revision of Mr. "Walker's Catalogue as by far 

 the most important part of the paper. I will not express any 

 opinion on the correctness of the descriptions in the Catalogue, 

 on the principle that a critic is always too ready to find fault with 

 his fellow-workers, and at the same time may be blind to his own 

 shortcomings. Suffice it to say that the chief defect appears not 

 to be inaccuracy of specific description, but a disregard in some 

 instances of the sectional characters, whereby those workers who 

 cannot obtain access to the types are liable to be misled ; that 

 specific distinctions are frequently founded on unimportant varia- 

 tions is also to be regretted, but is less serious. Against these 

 objections is to be placed the weighty fact that at the time when 

 the Catalogue was written, now fourteen years since, the subject 

 was in an all but chaotic condition. The examination of the types 



