r893.] THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 165 



scholars as to the necessity of doubling the v in constructing terms 

 from two or more derivatives, and this applies to several generic 

 names of the Curculionidse. It also appears that Aristotle (Book 

 XXVII.) used a single r, as in Ovnithorhynchus. But it is of little 

 consequence which mode of spelling is adopted, provided we agree to 

 use one only, and this has not hitherto been the case in either the 

 " Entomological Monthly Magazine " or other entomological publica- 

 tions. The printing of the Catalogue is not so good or perfect as we 

 could wish, and the selected types not nearly so neat as those in Canon 

 Fowler's former production, indeed, the latter Catalogue in this respect 

 is by far the best that has yet been issued. In pointing out these 

 alterations and slight defects, which in no wise detract from the merits 

 or usefulness of the present work, we do not wish to disparage the 

 authors' labours in compiling a Catalogue of so great importance 

 to the student, but have much pleasure in commending it to our 

 readers. The index appended to the Catalogue will be found of great 

 advantage. 



British Lepidoptera, by Charles G. Barrett, f.e.s. — The first 

 volume of this work, which completes the butterflies is now in the 

 hands of the subscribers, and will certainly take its place among the 

 most important books on British Entomology. It includes an account 

 not only of those species known to occur in Britain, but also of those 

 known or reputed to have occurred, but which are no longer to be 

 found, also of casual visitors and species accidentally introduced, 

 making 89 in all. Besides the description of the species in their 

 various stages, an interesting account is given of their habits, haunts, 

 &c. The variation of each is also treated on at considerable length, 

 and a description of many striking varieties given, with information as 

 to the cabinet in which such specimens are now placed. Where the 

 separation of the species is difficult, the valuable tabulation introduced 

 by the late Mr. Stainton, is given, which renders it easy, even for a 

 beginner, to name his specimens. In one respect only do we feel 

 disappointed in the work. Mr. Barrett does not deal with the 

 vexed question of synonomy. To do this would, no doubt, take a 

 great deal of time, would involve a controversy and might not settle 

 anything. Mr. Barrett expresses doubt whether the changes of 

 names proposed by Dr. Staudinger are " in all cases warranted, 

 whether, in fact, the descriptions really represent the species to which 

 they have been applied." He settles the nomenclature question so far 

 however, that he adopts those names with which we are all familiar 

 as the proper name of the various species, giving those of Staudinger's 

 Catalogue on the authority of that work, not on the authority of the 

 writers to whom Staudinger attributes these names. Probably Mr. 

 Barrett has done wisely in adopting this course, and there is little 



