172 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



jecturally identified with that of a previous writer, often without 

 comparison of types on the one hand, or any reference to the original 

 description on the other. We cannot, however, agree so cordially 

 with Mr. Distant in the extremely unsatisfactory manner in which he 

 frequently ranks the species of other authors as synonyms without 

 sufficient comment or explanation. It is true he says candidly 

 (p. 20, note) " in treating other entomologists' species as ' varieties,' I 

 am of course, in the absence of breeding experiments, expressing my 

 own views alone " ; but this is a very different matter from including 

 a species described by Walker from the Cape (Platypleura gemina) 

 among the synonyms of the common East Izidian P. nobilis, Germ., 

 without further remark than that Walker's locality is " clearly 

 erroneous." If the specimen differs, it is probably a distinct species ; 

 while even if it does not, there is no a priori reason why the same 

 species should not be found in Africa and Asia, which would be simply 

 an interesting fact in geographical distribution. 



Every excuse must be made for difficulties in the verification of the 

 species of the old authors ; but too little care has certainly been taken 

 in this direction also, and we cannot think that if either Mr. Atkinson 

 or Mr. Distant had compared Linne's description of Cicada repanda in 

 the * Museum Ulrica,' p. 159, they would ever have applied the name 

 to Walker's Platypleura interna, which differs in almost every particular 

 stated by Linne. Nor is this the only instance in which Mr. Distant 

 appears to have accepted the ipse dixit of another entomologist, without 

 verification, when the correct identification of a species is open to 

 grave doubt, as in the case of Stal's identification of Platypleura ciliaris, 

 Linn. 



The synoptic tables of genera are extremely useful, but would be 

 more so if they had been drawn up in such a manner as to apply to the 

 females as well as the males throughout. We are aware that synoptic 

 tables are very difficult to prepare, and the least error renders them 

 misleading ; but still we think that too little attention is paid by many 

 writers to female insects when describing genera and species in which 

 the secondary male characters [e. g., the drums of CicadidEe) are of 

 unusual importance. 



Little is known of the metamorphoses of the Cicadidse, and it 

 would not be fair to blame Mr. Distant for not giving us more infor- 

 mation on the subject. We have no doubt that much useful information 

 might be derived even from an examination of the empty pupa-cases, 

 which are common in our collections, if they were always ticketed with 

 the name of the species to which they belong, but unfortunately this is 

 rarely the case ; and otherwise such specimens are almost useless for 

 scientific purposes. We must not omit to add that when a species is 

 found in more than one locality, it would always be well to state the 

 locality from which the specimens which are regarded as typical, as 

 well as of any species figured, were obtained. 



We are sure that the study of Cicadidffi will be largely promoted by 

 the publication of this valuable work ; and if we have ventured to 

 point out a few of what appear to us short-comings, it is only to 

 indicate the lines on which we think still more useful work may be 

 done in future. We must remember that it is much easier to criticise 

 than to avoid error or incompleteness. 



