256 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



species, such as Pieris hrassicce and Colias edusa, are erroneously stated 

 to occur in Japan, whilst of some others, such as Lencophada sinapis, 

 Colias liyale, and Vanessa io, all of which are found in Japan and Amurland, 

 no mention is made of their distribution outside of the British Islands. 



Variation is considered at some length, but, as a rule, reference is only- 

 made to a few of the more striking forms of variation. Of course it is very 

 interesting to know that curious aberrations or abnormal specimens of 

 certain species are contained in a particular collection, but such information 

 does not help us to understand much about the general range of variation 

 obtaining in such species. In the present day there should be no difficulty 

 in comparing forms of a species occurring in Britain with those that occur 

 in other parts of Europe or in Asia. On p. 86 a variety of female Lyccena 

 (Polyommatus) corydon is mentioned as " probably unique as a variety," but 

 from the description it appears to be an example of the well-known var. 

 syngrapha. Again, on p. 132, reference is made to forms of Vanessa urticcB, 

 one of which seems to approach the Japanese var. connexa, Butler, and 

 another to a local Indian race of the species, but these interesting facts are 

 omitted. Many similar instances might be quoted. 



In the matter of synonymy, we think that Mr. Barrett has acted 

 unwisely in adopting the somewhat evasive expedient of giving some 

 of the various trivial names by which a species is known, and inviting 

 his readers to use that which they may happen to prefer. Apparently 

 the fact was overlooked that one of these names must of a necessity 

 precede the others, and that the first one would be considered to be 

 the one adopted by him. If, therefore, Mr. Barrett, in those cases where 

 he uses a name for a species different to that of Staudinger's Cata- 

 logue, has not assured himself that the nomenclature of Dr. Staudinger, 

 which is accepted by a very large majority of European — including British — 

 entomologists, is wrong, he cannot be certain that he is not himself in error. 

 The plea that he has not had time to study the question is an insufficient 

 one, and does not justify him in ignoring the opinion of those who have 

 given a very great deal of time and consideration to the subject. 



In adopting Chrysop)hanus for dispar, phlceas, &c., Mr. Barrett is quite 

 correct, but we are unable to understand why he places hcetica and argiades 

 in Lyccena, and uses Polyommatus for all the other " blues." As he has 

 thought it desirable to generically separate bcetica and argiades from the 

 other species usually included in Lycmia, he should have placed the former 

 in Polyommatus and the latter in Everes, as they are considered to be the 

 respective types of those genera. Again, as minima {alsus) is the type of 

 Zizera and argiolus the type of Cyaniris, he might have still further broken 

 up the little band of British Lycsenidse, and been quite up to date in doing so 

 Palcemon (paniscus) is the type of Carterocephalus, Lederer, and should not 

 be placed in Cyclopides, as none of the species belonging to that genus have 

 anything in common with palcemon. 



On the whole, Mr. Barrett is to be congratulated on the successful 

 completion of his first volume, which, although it is not beyond criticism 

 in the matters we have indicated, compares most favourably with any 

 previous work on British Butterflies. The type is clear, and there are 

 few printer's errors. It would perhaps have been an improvement if the 

 descriptive portions had been distinguished by a different type. We under- 

 stand that an edition on large paper, with coloured plates, has been published, 

 but we have not seen this. 



