REVIEWS. 709 
my protest against such a wide separation of the two groups, con- 
sidering, as I do, that, whatever may be the condition of the Tri- 
choptera with regard to others of the Linnean groups of igs ical 
their relationship to the Lepidoptera is close, and that an attempt 
to thus widely separate them is an outrage on both. In metamor- 
phosis the resemblance is nearly hpna the fact of the pupal 
limbs not being enclosed within a common integument’ not avail- 
taken into consideration : the poanian if mandibles by the Tri- 
chopterous nymph is not of much importance, insomuch as these 
organs bear no relationship to the aborted “ination of the imago ; 
they simply replace the acid or mechanical means by which a Lep- 
idopterous imago frees itself from its cocoon. The imago in Lep- 
idoptera is almost constantly furnished with scales on “the wings 
and body, scales of a peculiar nature, the analogues of which are 
seen only in Lepisma; but many Trichopterous insects have, in 
the male, a modification of these scales in the form of short in- 
flated hairs, generally intermingled with ordinary hairs; and in 
some genera this tendency towards a scaly clothing is as sca 
as is its absence in some Lepidoptera. The neural arrangem 
is not at all incompatible with a close relationship; nor are the 
parts of the mouth, excepting the absence of a developed haustel- 
um; yet many of the larger Trichoptera frequent flowers Vr the 
purpose of extracting the nectar ; an though I am unable to say 
by what means this is effected, it seems probable that it is ‘aon 
by prolongation, at will, of the upper portion of the esophagus 
into a sort of false haustellum. Perhaps the strongest are of 
demarcation is the presence, in bae Lepidopterous imagos, 
spine-like process near the base of the costa of the hind ace 
wanting in all Trichoptera. That this process is a modification 
First: we fully agree with the author that the admission of the 
Odonata (Libellulide) into the Orthoptera ‘‘renders an already 
heterogeneous order an absolute chaos.” But on the other hand, 
we think the burden of proof that the “Odonata” are not true 
Neuroptera rests on those who regard the group as an independent 
order. Where respectable authorities (taking it for granted that 
their characters are neither Neuropterous nor Orthopterous, which 
“we do not admit), regard them as a division of Neuroptera, no one 
having, as far as we know, considered them as Orthoptera before 
Erichson’s time; and others equally respectable regard them as 
