Insects. 3743 



one's own country, — I have but one other paragraph connected there- 

 with to take into consideration; namely, the opening one, in conjunc- 

 tion with the eulogistic review of the work, (Zool. 3532). In the first 

 it is stated that a no work at all approaching it has ever appeared in 

 England;" and in the review that it "is in all respects a model for 

 future labourers in the same field," — the context implying as a mo- 

 nograph. 



Whether it eclipses the fame of the world-wide celebrated c Mono- 

 graphia Apum Anglise,' with all its erudition, the care bestowed upon 

 the descriptions of the several sections, species, &c, I leave to the 

 candour of the reader to decide, after his perusal of the following 

 notes, which will also tend to controvert, or modify, the opinion ex- 

 pressed in the review. 



1. The absence of specific characters; or of any clew for readily 

 ascertaining the species. 



2. The substitution of millemetres for the usual scientific measures 

 of length. 



3. The numerous subdivisions of genera into groupes, &c. — the 

 greater part of which are uncharacterized: e.g. the genus Agrotis into 

 13 groupes and 23 subordinate divisions, only three or four of which 

 are alluded to by Guenee !! 



4. The old species for the most part only referred to, and no descrip- 

 tions annexed, — 247 out of 669 in the first volume alone. (This most 

 serious defect in a monograph, imposes upon the student the necessity 

 of a large outlay to obtain the books requisite to ascertain the species 

 omitted : e. g., the works of Hiibner alone, with their continuation, 

 costing ninety guineas, and, except by a favourable chance, not to be 

 procured at a lower rate !) 



5. An indefensible innovation in the nomenclature : e. g., in vol. i. 

 389, " Hoporina croceago, Albin " ; vol. ii. 339, " Plusia V-aureum, 

 Engr." ; vol. i. 43, " Acronycta tridens, Roes." ; none of these names 

 to be found in the authors quoted ; some of whom wrote before the 

 invention of the binomial nomenclature by Linne, whose authority is 

 quoted for Acronycta Psi, although Albin and Roesel are both referred 

 to by Guenee : — there are dozens of such instances. 



6. The omission to notice at least one-third of the works published 

 on the Noctuae during the past twenty-five years: of Zetterstedt — one 

 of the most important writers — all we learn is, " M. Zetterstedt dres- 



* The genus Epunda seems to be as heterogeneous an assemblage of species as 

 any of Hiibner's depreciated groups. 



