“36 THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S RECORD. 
‘exhibited in the length of the Proceedings for the year, which has only 
reached 35 pages against 47 for 1898, 65 for 1897, and 61 for 1896. 
The Transactions, too, are smaller for 1899, and one notes them as 
containing only 499 pp. and 17 plates, as against 592 pp. and 17 
plates for 1889, whilst those for 1898 also contained but 444 pages 
and 19 plates against 606 pages and 17 plates for 1888. The Pro- 
ceedings are especially interesting to the general body of Fellows 
and should be maintained at any cost at the highest possible standard 
of excellence. 
It must be a matter for general congratulation among naturalists that 
Sir John Lubbock has been raised to the peerage as Lord Avebury. In 
the bustle and worry of a crowded life, no one has done more to raise the 
level of the popular taste in those branches of natural science he so 
dearly loves, and one could wish that increased leisure would allow the 
Eix-President of the Entomological Society of London again to return 
to the more special branches of our own science, in which, for so many 
years, he was one of the most successful and hardest workers. We also 
observe that he presided on January 10th-11th at the Conference 
of Science Teachers which was held at the Imperial Institute, and 
we may further note that at the same conference Mr. J. W. Tutt 
read a paper entitled “‘ Object Lessons in Natural History.” It would 
appear that natural science will soon have its lawful place in the curri- 
cula of our technical and secondary schools recognised by those in 
authority (H.D.). 
here is an excellent annotated ‘‘ List of the Macro-Lepidoptera 
collected within eight miles of Hull,” by Mr. J. W. Boult, in the 
Transactions of the Hull Scientific and Mield Naturalists’ Club, published 
December Ist, 1899. In it 287 species are recorded, but the hst is 
more remarkable for the omission of some of what we generally con- 
sider common species than anything included. One is inclined to 
consider that the excuse for the exclusion of the Muicro-Lepidoptera, 
eviz.: “ We experience great difficulty in getting these named,”’ is alto- 
gether unworthy of a Field Naturalists’ Club whose duty it should 
certainly be to name the insects of its district for the outsider. We 
further observe that the Editor ‘has taken a good deal of trouble with 
Mr, Boult’s list, the order and nomenclature of which have been 
reduced to that of Mr. G. T. Porritt’s List of Yorkshire Lepidoptera, 
1883.”" One expects Natural History Societies to mark progress, not 
to set back (as we suspect this really means) the nomenclature used by 
its more advanced and up-to-date members to a list (Doubleday’s) that 
-has long since been obsolete among the newer generation of lepi- 
dopterists ; all of which, however, detracts nothing from the value of 
the list, as a local list, which shows evidence of great care and know- 
ledge of the local fauna on the part of the author who compiled it from 
his own observations and those of his co-workers. 
Our “Special Index”’ for vol. xi. (1899), consisting of no less than 
28 pp. of closely printed (double-column) references, can now be 
obtained from Mr. H. HE. Page, “ Bertrose,”’ Gellatly Road, St. 
Catherine’s Park, 8.E. Price 1s. Our last volume completed, there- 
fore, consisted of 352 pp. of letterpress, 8 pp. general index, 28 pp. 
special index, and 2 pp. title page. We suspect 390 pp. solid 8vo., 
constitutes a record in the quantity of matter published by any one 
monthly entomological magazine in this‘country in a year. eres 
