220 MR. u. m'lacitlan on a systematic 



intimate knowledge of the structure of the famil}^ ; but in most 

 eases he grouped many, and often discordant forms as divisions 

 of his genera, without indicating any special generic type ; hence 

 I have been compelled to an arbitrary adaptation of his views to 

 the present state of our knowledge, carefully preserving, how- 

 ever, his names, and applying each to some one of the divisions 

 he bracketed together under it. 



Lefebvre, in the paper just examined, announced his intention 

 of publishing a monograph of the group. I liave every reason 

 to believe that this was really completed in MS., and the illus- 

 trations prepared, and that it still exists in the possession of his 

 family ; yet, from some cause or other, it was never published, 

 though its writer lived for at least twenty-five years after making 

 known his intention. The fact of its non-publication is much to 

 be deplored. 



Also in 1842 appeared the volume of the ' Nouvelles Suites a 

 Bufton,' comprising llambur's ' llistoire Naturclle dcs Nevro- 

 pteres. His " Ascalaphides " are divided into nine genera, viz. 

 Ascalaphus,-Theleproctophylla, Puer, Buho, Tllula, Cordulecerus, 

 Colohopterus, Byas, Haploglenius (nee Burm.), and Azesia. From 

 the almost simultaneous appearance of Lefebvre's and E-ambur's 

 arrangement a risk of confusion ensued ; but that this was ob- 

 viated is proved by the fact that E,ambur criticises, and in some 

 respects adopts, Lefebvre's views. Eambur enumerates and de- 

 scribes thirty-one species. 



In 1848 Westwood, in the ' Cabinet of Oriental Entomology,' 

 iiidicated a group under the name Ogcogaster. 



In 1853 Walker completed the second part of the * List of 

 Specimens of Neuropterous Insects in the Collection of the Bri- 

 tish Museum :' including forty-one described in that work as 

 new, he enumerates eighty-one species, placing them all under 

 Ascalaphus, but indicating divisions. Like all the otlier Catalogues 

 by this author, this shows an immense amount of bibliographical 

 research, and as a compilation is very valuable ; but, like them 

 also, it proves the author's incapacity for discriminating species or 

 groups ; and, as a consequence, many of his names sink as syno- 

 nyms of his own or previously described species. The descriptions 

 are generally good, often excellent ; but there is no appreciation 

 of afBnities, and the whole work bears the impress of mechanical 

 effort. 

 , In 1860 Hageu published, in the ' Stettiner entomologische 



