BOOK NOTICES. 



117 



LOPHYRIDES. 



*Lophyrus Pini L. 



I had the pleasure of breeding nine examples of this insect 

 from larv^ taken on Scotch pine in 1881. Also took a quantity 

 of larvae from the same species of pine on Strensall Common in 

 1883. 



ICHNE UMONID^. 



Ichneumon derasus 



Beat one example of this insect out of a hawthorn hedge, 1883. 



CR YPTID^. 



*Cryptus tricolor Gr. 



A female of this species taken amongst oak, 1883. 

 *Cryptus cimbicis 



Bred several examples of this, male and female, from a cocoon 

 of Trichiosoma betuleti. Taken at Holgate, 1882. 

 *Cryptus sponsor (Fab.) 



Found one example of this at large. 



BOOK NOTICES. 

 'The Entomologist' Synonymic List of British Lepidop- 



tera<. — Compiled in conformity with the law of priority by Richard South. 



(London: West, Newman & Co., 1884. pp. 40+40). 

 So far as concerns typography and general get-up this list is substantially a re- 

 production of Doubleday's (which has so long been out of date and out of print) 

 and is equal in merit to Messrs. West and Newman's other publications ; although 

 improvements might have been adopted with advantage. For instance, the small 

 capitals used for specific names are not at all clear or pleasant to the eye, and might 

 have been discarded for lower-case letters, or better still, for the thick type 

 employed for names of families. It also seems a decided mistake not to print 

 binomial names in full (thus, Papilio jnachaon L. ) instead of adopting the un- 

 scientific practice too much in vogue with lepidopterists of using specific names 

 only ; and it is unnecessary to insert a comma between the specific name and that 

 of the author who bestowed it. But these questions do not affect the scientific 

 character of the work, and it will be of more importance to consider how Mr. South 

 acquits himself in questions of nomenclature and arrangement, and how he deals with 

 synonymy and variation. In his preface he freely acknowledges that he has confined 

 himself to collating the work of others, so far as nomenclature and arrangement go. 

 This is an advantage, inasmuch as lists, as a rule, should not deviate too far from 

 published monographs. Mr. South's arrangement differs materially from Double- 

 day's, and approximates more to Stainton's and Staudinger's. For our own part 

 we never agreed with Doubleday's separation of the Noctu^ from the Bombyces 

 by the interposition of the Geometrae, nor the union of Sphinges and Bombyces as 

 Nocturni. In these and other respects we preferred the older arrangements, and 

 are glad to find that Mr. South is of the same opinion. We also think he is right 

 in removing the ' Plumes ' to a position nearer the Pyrales. But we cannot think 

 that he has yet fixed upon their true location. Instead of placing them between 

 the Pyrales and Crambites, they would probably be much better located after the 

 latter group, and immediately preceding the Tortrices. The minor changes, for the 

 most part based upon Staudinger, are necessarily matters of opinion. The Pseudo- 

 bombyces revert to their old and familiar position as a family of the Bombyces, the 

 genera Petasia (now Asteroscopus), Diloba^ Denias^ Aveniia, Boletobia, and the 



Dec. 1884. 



