926 a: [February, 
Fab. (p. 42). In other cases we find the volume mentioned, but the page omitted. 
For instance, the genera Astata (p. 10), Eumenes (p. 20), and Odynerus (p. 21). 
One would have expected the works of Latreille to be accessible to supply these 
omissions ; and in truth, in other references to the same works, the page is properly 
given. The references to Stephens are few and far between; one of the few is 
Miscophus bécolor (p. 10), where pl. 42, f. 3, instead of pl. 47, f. 4, is cited by a mis- 
take, the origin of which is apparent on turning to the 7th vol. of the Illustrations.* 
A short list of Errata is printed at p. 43 of the Catalogue; but it is manifest 
from what precedes that this list is not exhaustive. Neither the Introduction nor 
the Index has quite escaped. I have in fact noticed something like a hundred 
mistakes ; how many are due to the copyist, and how many to the printer, I have 
no means of ascertaining. Most of these are fortunately minute and harmless, but 
the number of wrong pages is ndt inconsiderable. The extreme difficulty however 
of preparing and printing a Catalogue of this sort must always be borne in mind. 
The whole work is an endless series of figures and abbreviations, each one of which 
requires careful attention, and there is no context to give either a suggestion of 
error or aclue to the intention. The only wonder is therefore that the Errata are 
not more important. 
Finally, the typography, paper, and general aspect of the Catalogue are all 
that can be desired, and the price at which it is published places it within every- 
body’s reach. The little blemishes which I have alluded to are the spots on the 
sun’s face, and I am aware that I run the risk of being considered hypercritical 
in drawing attention to such minutiz. When all is said, there remains no small 
debt of gratitude to Mr. Smith for the compilation. Knowing by experience the 
monotonous drudgery of such a task, I use no empty formula when I express my 
thanks for what .he has done. Andif I have ventured to criticize in detail, I am 
sure he knows me better than to attribute this to any desire on my part to carp at 
his work, and will give me credit for wishing only to avoid the repetition in the 
Catalogues of the future of what seem to me to be the defects of the present. 
It is understood that the next instalment will include the Ichnewmonide and 
some other Parasitic Hymenoptera, by the Rev. T. A. Marshall. I presume the 
Chrysidide will be included in this Part, and wili probably form the commence- 
ment of it, since they would seem to be in natural sequence to the Aculeata. The 
printing of these Catalogues is a severe drain upon the resources of the Society, 
and Entomologists at all events would be glad if by external assistance—such as a 
grant in aid from the Government Grant Committee of the Royal Society—more 
rapid progress could be made in the publication. One thing is certain, that if the 
scheme is carried out, all the money will have been well spent; whilst if it should 
fall short of completion for want of funds, Entomological Science, if she will not 
sustain a heavy loss, will at any rate fail to realize a gigantic gain. I con- 
clude then by wishing success to the proposed * General Catalogue of the Insects 
of the British Isles,” and may it be soon finished as well as it has been begun !— 
J. W. Dunnine, 24, Old Buildings, Lincoln’s Inn, January, 1872. 
* Mr. Smith places the genera Tachytes, Miscophus, Dinetus, and Astata in a family which he 
calls Larride. Surely the Larridew must be the family of which Zarra is the typical genus. But 
on a reference to Proc. Lin. Soc. xi. pp 363, 367, it will be seen that so far from regarding Larra 
as the type of the Larride, Mr. Smith places it in the family Nyssonide. If Larra belongs to the 
Nyssonide, some other name should be found for the family of which Tachytes is a member. We 
have long been accustomed to the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out, and we have 
recently heard a good deal of a Republic without republicans ; but a fam. Larridw, to which the 
gen. Lavra does not belong, is insupportable.—J. W. D. 
