HORTICULTUEAL JOURNAL. 115 
Silvanus is placed among the Rhyncophora, although its situation is 
entirely diflferent ; Calandra is placed under the Bruchides ; Brenthus under 
Attellidae; Hylohius, Balaninus and Rhyncliaenus under Phyllobides ; 
Thrips in Aphididae. Phyllohius is described, though its habits are not 
given ; (it is found on the leaves of Papaw) whilst Baridius d-notatus, 
one of the enemies of the potato plant, is not mentioned. 
Chrysomela philadelphica, Linn. (p. 130, pi. 14, fig. 12) is not cited for 
this species; it is identified from the description in Kirby, p. 210, -whom he 
is vain enough to criticise, although if he had turned the leaf, and had the 
ability to read entomological descriptions understandingly, he would have 
recognized his species as C. Bigshyana. Kirby says : " The anterior margin 
and sides of the prothorax are reddish, the remaining parts green." Emmons 
says : " Front and margins of the thorax and elytra green color," the pos- 
terior segment being green. He farther adds : " It does not agree with the 
description of 'philadelphica by Kirby" (why should it, being a different 
species ?)" who made no allusion to the margins of the thorax." Why 
should he, seeing that philadelphica has no such markings ? And why 
should the Doctor refer his insect to a description which did not suit it, and 
not to one which did ? He tells us : " The difference /regard as sexual." 
Page 197, Xylocarpa, meaning "wood fruit," for Xylocopa, and Ophion 
are placed in the Evaniideae. 
In the diurnal Lepidoptera of which most of our species are figured and 
described in various books, it is now difficult to make an error ; yet Danaus 
is placed in the family of Heliconiidoe, and the name D. plexippus belongs 
to a Chinese species ; the proper name is D. erippus, Cramer, 1775, or B. 
arehippus, Fabr. 1798. Limenitis is also improperly placed here. Colias 
Europome, Swains, is quoted on p. 204 as a synonym of Colias Phyllodoce, 
although that author did make it a Colias, but a Eurymus (Zool. 111. 2d 
series, pi. 70). PI. 29, figs. 1 and 4, are not described ; they are both given 
as species of Leptis, although the drawings of the antennae do not agree 
with that genus, the right side of fig. 4 belongs to one genus, and the left 
to another. PI. 30. There are two fig. 4s on this plate ; the genuine one 
is stated to be of a young insect, although it represents an adult ; though 
plate 15, fig. 4 is entirely distinct from fig. 5, Dr. Emmons thinks the two 
identical ; he quotes Drury's name for one of them, and if he had consulted 
this author's plate 47, fig. 4, he would have found the other, which is Libel- 
lula Lydia, Drury. This author has copied figures from the work, a disguise 
being attempted by reversing them. Drury's figures are much better than 
the copies, yet how does Dr. Emmons expect them to be recognized, when he 
