REVIEWS. 209 



How is it possible for scale shapes to be of both generic and 

 specific importance to entomologists? 



Of course such a juggling with scientific names as that on 

 page 18 is obviously not permissible, maculipalpis James & 

 Liston and nigermnus James & Liston being entirely untenable. 



The directions for collecting mosquitoes, given in Chapter II, 

 are very good, but the method of mounting on disks is anti- 

 quated, slovenly, and entirely unsatisfactory when the worker 

 desires to examine the ventral surface of the specimen. It is 

 slovenly because by passing a pin through the thorax it is impos- 

 sible to avoid removing scales which are important in classifi- 

 cation. That method describing the use of cork or pith is much 

 more satisfactory in every respect and it alone should have been 

 given. 



On page 11 "upright forked scales" is criticized and the expres- 

 sion is then used on page 28 and repeatedly elsewhere, an obvious 

 inconsistency. 



The prothoracic lobes are spoken of on page 30 as if they 

 were appendages rather than a part of the thorax itself. 



The tenn promontory as used on page 40 and elsewhere is 

 not entomological. 



Nyssomyzomyia as a substitute for Pseudomyzomyia, on pages 

 43 and 44, is assuredly an unwarranted innovation in systematic 

 entomology. 



May we be delivered from the necessity of a subgenus as 

 intimated in the footnote on page 46! 



On page 49 we have Myzorhynchus nigerrimus James & Liston 

 and M. nigerrimus Giles! On page 54 we are told that this 

 species, that is, M. nigerrimus James & Liston is sinensis! 

 Could there be anything more beautifully systematic than tliis? 



To pick out all the anomalies and absurdities of classifica- 

 tion would lengthen too greatly this already lengthy review. 



Suffice it to say that such an attempt as Messrs. James and 

 Liston have made should never be undertaken under the limited 

 conditions of inaccessibility to large collections and extensive 

 literature which must have been theirs in the preparation of 

 their book. It had been far better to give merely descriptions, 

 leaving systematic work to that future Alexander who might 

 cut the Gordian knot into which the classification of the ("uli- 

 cidae is tied. 



Several inaccuracies and inconsistencies in orthography occur 



U1310 7 



