102 
THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S WEEKLY INTELLIGENCEE. 
The ninth contains a description of the 
pupa. 
Tlie tenth records the name of the 
perfect insect, and when it emerged. 
The eleventh is reserved for such pro- 
miscuous remarks as may present 
themselves. 
A diary in this form has one very 
great advantage pertaining to it, which 
is that the record of each larva “ is in its 
own place,” and is all before you at the 
same lime. I divide each opening trans- 
viTseltj into four parts, serving for the 
register of as many larvae, which affords 
ample room for the introduction of addi- 
tional observations upon the same insects, 
made in subsequent years. 
Such a diary as I have described may 
be termed a “ special diary,” being applied 
to a particular purpose ; but an energetic 
and systematic entomologist will also 
keep a general or “ day by day” one, in 
which he will record the tenor of his 
general observations, captures, excur- 
sions, &c. 
In case I should not have made myself 
intelligible to your readers, I beg to say, 
in conclusion, that I shall be xnost happy 
to forward an exlemo extract of an entry 
from my diary to any entomologist who 
may consider the plan of sufficient inte- 
rest to him. 
I am, sir. 
Your obedient servant, 
S. J. Wilkinson. 
7, Jeffreys Square, 
St. Mary Axe, London, E.C.; 
August 25, 1858. 
MR. WATERHOUSE’S CATALOGUE OF 
COLEOPTERA. 
To the Editor of the ‘ Intelligencer.' 
Sir, — In the ‘Annual’ just published 
Mr. .lanson states that, in my Catalogue 
“ the Stephensiun synonyms are based 
upon the examination of a single indi- 
vidual only of each species, selected by 
him from the series, however extensive, 
and arbitrarily taken as the type, without 
any reference whatever to the remaining 
specimens, of which no account at all is 
vouchsafed.” 
The object of this .statement is obvious, 
but it is not at all obvious that were it 
untrue I should be able to prove it so ; 
therefore I am anxious to call attention 
to the fact that Mr. Janson furnishes no 
proof that his statement is founded upon 
fact. 
There are other statements also made 
by Mr. Janson which are not substan- 
tiated ; for instance, he says that in my 
lists of the genera Rhizophagus and 
Monotonia, “ no authors’ names are ap- 
pended to the species.” Should it prove, 
for instance, that it is expressly stated, 
in the paper on Rhizophagus, that the 
species are determined from Erichson’s 
descriptions, and if I likewise have given 
the sources from whence the species of 
Monotonia are determined, then will Mr. 
Janson’s assertion appear remarkable. 
Lastly, I have to deny that the reasons 
adduced by Mr. Janson, at p. 118 of the 
‘Annual,’ “warrant the expectation” 
that my Catalogue should afford “a 
complete epitome” of the Stephensian 
collection, for, taking the context into 
consideration, it is pretty clear that Mr. 
Janson intends it to be understood by 
the phrase, that I should examine every 
individual specimen in Mr. Stephens’ col- 
lection, — a collection which Mr. Stephens 
states contained upwards of twenty-six 
thousand specimens at the time that his 
‘ Manual ’ was published, — a colleetion 
in whieh I have this day counted two 
hundred and fifty-one specimens placed 
to represent only two species! 1 may, or 
I may not, examine every one of these 
specimens, but 1 beg to state that as 
I never have undertaken the task, 1 do 
not see what right any jrerson has to 
expect me to accomplish it; and, further. 
