164 



THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 



[August 



forward Donovan's statement that the insect labelled Hyale was 

 undoubtedly the insect we know by that name. I did not refer to 

 Donovan's statement, for I was told years ago by my father, that the 

 Linnaean collection of insects was brought over from Sweden by 

 Dr. Smith, that the ship was pursued by a Swedish man-of-war and 

 fired upon, and that several labels got displaced and were re-adjusted 

 to the wrong insects. It is curious, too, that Linnaeus should include 

 Hyale in the Fauna Suecica if it does not occur in Scandinavia. As I 

 have , stated before, M. Schizen includes Edusa, but not Hyale, in the 

 Rhopalocera of Norway. Besides, I cannot imagine Linnaeus to be 

 such a bad naturalist as to mistake figures of Edusa for Hyale as 

 Dr. Buckell imagines. 



What I, and many other naturalists desire, is that nomenclature 

 should be the servant, not the tyrant, of science, and if Dr. Buckell 

 can do more than I can towards attaining that object, I would rather 

 extend to him the right hand of friendship, instead of treating him in 

 the schoolmaster v. schoolboy fashion in which he appears to be 

 treating me. 



Glanvilles Wootton, Dorset. 



Publications Received. 



Catalogue of British Coleoptera, by D. Sharp and W. W. 

 Fowler. — As some ten years have elapsed since the publication of 

 both Dr. Sharp's Catalogue and that of the Rev. A. Matthews and 

 Canon Fowler, a revised edition by the above two eminent authorities 

 will be gladly welcomed by British Coleopterists. In compiling this 

 Catalogue the authors have evidently endeavoured to bring our 

 nomenclature more in accord with that of our continental brethren ; 

 and in doing so we may naturally expect to find many changes have 

 been made in the general arrangement, the generic names, and also in 

 the order of species. While not expressing an opinion as to the 

 wisdom or otherwise of these alterations in the British list, we may 

 express the hope that a standard has at last been arrived at, and that 

 future generations of coleopterists will have less to perplex and confuse 

 them in the matter of naming their specimens than at present prevails. 



Among other alterations, we notice certain differences in the mode 

 of spelling various names. For instance, Ceuthorhynchus, Otiorhynchus, 

 and similarly compounded words in the Catalogue under notice are 

 spelt with an additional r. Polydvosus was always polydnisus in Dr. 

 Sharp's Catalogues, and the latter spelling is adopted in the new 

 edition. No doubt both authors have gone carefully into the question 

 of spelling, but, we believe, there is a disagreement among Greek 



