288 THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S RECORD. 
a separate chapter in addition to the details being included in their 
proper systematic position? In the general chapter on the PsycumpEs 
it would surely have been strange if no mention or reference had been 
made to parthenogenetic reproduction, yet, in vol. i, there is a general 
chapter on ‘parthenogenesis,’ and it would surely be unwise not to 
mention the phenomenon in the different superfamilies as they are in 
turn treated. One surmises that Mr. Tutt chose to write a general 
chapter on ‘‘ parthenogenesis ’’ before he said anything about it in the 
systematic portion of the book, because he felt in a better position to 
tackle this biological question, but we should not be impatient because 
similar chapters on hybridism, gynandromorphism, &c., are not to be 
found in vol. i. 
There is another point raised by Mr. Bateson, viz., whether a certain 
section of the book could not be increased at the expense of another. 
Reference to the preface to vol. 11 shows that the author was fully aware 
that this‘criticism would be forthcoming. Mr. Bateson would surely 
not, considering our scanty knowledge of the details of the distribution 
and localities of our species, really seriously suggest, especially after 
reading what the author says about the distribution of Malacosoma 
neustria, that the full local lists should be cut down to increase the 
space for references! The author very tritely explains in the Preface, 
that his answer to any criticism involving an increase in the size of the 
book, would be that he “‘cannot get a quart into a pint pot.’’ We take 
it that Mr. Tutt by this wishes to convey to us that his printer will not 
print any more pages for the same money. ‘The volumes are, without 
any increase, quite stout enough, and none of us can grumble that 
there is not enough printed matter for the price. In any considera- 
tion as to whether the local lists could be cut down, it must surely 
be admitted that the author is likely to be the best judge of the wishes 
of a large majority of the subscribers. Speaking as one of them, I 
would suggest that the consensus of opinion would be almost 
entirely against such an idea. ‘To the active working entomologist 
they are invaluable, and as the author has enlisted the subscriptions of 
a large number of such entomologists one can easily surmise what 
their verdict would be. If the author does not object to criticism, it 
would be interesting to know from the subscribers what their opinion 
is. Apart from the difficulty of knowing what to discard and what to 
retain, from the scientific point of view, my own strong personal con- 
viction is that the full lists should be retained for the benefit of 
collectors, for whom the book is intended, as well as for students, as the 
title-page tells us. The sympathetic remarks of Mr. Merrifield in the 
Entomologist, and those of Mr. Bateson on the general contents of the 
book must be most gratifying to the author and some compensation for 
the close time spent in its production. 
GYOLEOPTERA. 
Coleoptera at Rannoch in June. 
By T. HUDSON BEARH, B.Sc., F.R.S.E., F.E.S, 
Mr. Donisthorpe and I left for the North by the 8.30 p.m. express 
from Euston on Friday, June 22nd, and arrived at Struan station about 
8 a.m. on Saturday morning. Ourluggage was to go by the mail cart 
to Kinloch Rannoch, and we were to cycle over, but an unfortunate 
