80 



THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



more or less doubtful, such as Sphinx pimstri, Notodonta tritophus, and 

 GCuphisia crenata. While the figures are so nearly complete, descriptions 

 of the larvae from the pen of Mr. Buckler, are fewer in proportion. 

 This want, however, Mr. Hellens has most ably supplemented, giving des- 

 criptions or additional notes, in the case of no less than 45 out of the 63 

 species included in the volume. We think this is really a wonderful amount 

 of work to have accomplished. There are only seven remaining without any 

 larval description, viz., Acherontia atropos, Chaerocampa celcrio, Sesia bomhyli- 

 formis, Trochilium scolieeforme, culiciforme, formicteforme, and philanthi- 

 forme. We see no reason why these descriptions should not be given in an 

 appendix to a future volume if opportunity afforded. With Mr, Hellens it 

 is evidently a labour of love, and we should be glad to find he was able to 

 render the work absolutely complete. 



With regard to the plates themselves, they are quite up to the standard of 

 the plates of butterfly larvae. As we examine them in detail, we are charmed 

 with the exquisite fidelity of some of those with whose appearance we are 

 familiar. Yet when anything unusual attracts our notice, we can but regret 

 that the letterpress gives us no particulars of these forms. For instance, fig. 

 3b on plate xxx, differs greatly in colour from any larva of Humuli we ever 

 saw, and it has scarcely a trace of the horny plate on the second segment. 

 Not doubting for a moment that it is a strictly faithful representation of the 

 larva, we would have liked to know more about it. So too, fig. 1 on plate 

 xxxv., is very different from any of the brown forms of the larva of Dictaa 

 we ever saw. It has a spotted white band between the segments, and several 

 of the spiracles are enclosed in a large oblong black blotch ; nor is there the 

 usual yellow spiracular line. We repeat that we do not doubt the accurate 

 fidelity of the representation, but a word or two about the peculiarities would 

 have been interesting. Mr. Hellens speaks of the great similarity in the 

 larvae of the genus Hepialus, but adds " if they could be compared to- 

 gether in life, no doubt good points of distinction could be found." We 

 would refer also to the three commoner burnets, Trifolii, Lonicera, and 

 Filipendula. Not only are the larvae very much alike, but they all vary to 

 a considerable extent. Lonicera only is described by Mr. Buckler, so that 

 no comparison of them is made. We are pleased to see figures of Exulans 

 and Nubigena, and to find they at anyrate are distinguishable enough as 

 larvae. 



The next volume, to contain the remainder of the Bombyces, will not be 

 issued till 1888. We regret we have to wait so long for it, but all the mem- 

 bers of the Kay Society are not so much interested in Lepidoptera and their 

 larvae as we are. 



