BRITISH LEPIDOPTERA.—MR. BATESON’S REVIEW. 287 
far as the review is favourable probably the vast majority of the 
subscribers will be with him. In the last two paragraphs, however, 
opinion is likely to be greatly divided, and it would be well to know 
the views of others. Mr. Bateson here opens up the question as to 
whether certain general biological questions included in the systematic 
part of the work, should not have been ‘fully digested and arranged,”’ 
and then dealt with in separate chapters. I suspect that Mr. Bateson 
here refers more particularly to the details relating to gynandromor- 
phism, hybridity, and such-like questions. Considerable material 
relating to the former is dealt with in the chapter on the ANTHROCERIDES 
in vol. i, and, again, in vol. 11, much detail is gone into relating to the 
Lacuneipes. The reviewer would have, I take it, these details collected 
together in a general chapter on gynandromorphism. Now, however 
desirable this may be, it is necessary to ask: (1) Whether such special 
matter relating to a special group can consistently and with satisfaction 
- be divorced from that group? (2) Whether the material is yet avail- 
able on which to found a general chapter on this subject of sufficient 
importance to class with the other general chapters in this work ? 
Would it not be better done when the detailed material of a number of 
other superfamilies (including the butterflies) has been worked 
through? The amassed material must of necessity be so much greater 
and the generalisations obtained be more valuable and far-reaching. 
Mr. Bateson goes on to say that ‘it is no doubt impossible for a very 
busy man to carry out such a task”’ (the task of digesting and arranging 
in a special chapter). One suspects that if it were the general wish of 
his subscribers, Mr. Tutt would not find it impossible, and, indeed, 
would overcome the difficulty. The question uppermost in the author’s 
mind was doubtless whether the one or the other course was the more 
valuable, and, as one of the subscribers, I am certainly inclined to 
uphold the course the author has chosen. We shall all no doubt be 
greatly interested in such a general chapter, with all the scientific 
results obtained, if one be published in a future volume, but there can 
be no harm in knowing beforehand the units that are to build up the 
whole. 
Another general biological problem possibly included by Mr. 
Bateson in his criticism would be that of hybridism. There is much 
material relating thereto already in the chapters on the ANTHROCERIDES 
and Lacunemers. Here again the same general remark holds good. 
The amount of material that is sue to be forthcoming when such 
groups as the Sphingids, Saturniids, and Notodonts are worked through, 
is certain to be very great, and we can confidently expect that very 
much will then appear that has never yet been seen in print. One 
enquires also, whether the author should exclude the considerations of 
the material at hand when he was studying those superfamiliesjust named, 
and reserve it till he feels safe in dealing with it in connection with 
similar material that he may in future collect in his study of other 
superfamilies ? Should we not rather be thankful that such general 
matter as has already been worked out, is where it can readily be 
found, than stored away awaiting development, and so, in no small 
measure, risk the possibility of never being published at all? 
Would it not have been better to have asked that when a 
convenient time had arrived such subjects as ‘‘ gynandromorphism ”’ 
and ‘‘hybridism,”’ and other general biological problems, should have 
