232 
THE SUBSTITUTE. 
mentioned 1000 Adonis, or there- 
abouts, as well as the 500 Cinxia 
and 2000 Corydon, in my letter to 
which you refer. What would 
Venus say to this ? Such a man 
deserves to be single all his life. — 
Rev. E. Hobton, Wick, Worces- 
ter, February 14, 1857. 
Pup<£ in Hedge-rows. — After 
reading the remarks on pupa-dig- 
ging, by the Rev. J. Greene, I 
was determined to try my fortune 
at it, so I procured a garden- 
trowel and started on my digging 
expedition, on Saturday last, to 
Ghinglord, in Essex. I confined 
my operations to hedge-rows, be- 
lieving pnpaj were to be found 
there. I dug for half an hour 
without any success, but I went 
on, and presently what should 
turn up but Cluerocanipa Porcellus. 
Inspired by this good fortune I 
still persevered, and after I had 
been digging for one hour I found, 
on looking in my pupce-box, the 
following : — 
Chaerocampa Porcellus, 2 
„ Elpeuor, 3 
Sphinx Ligustri, 3 
Snierimhus Tiliaj, 2 
and several others, of whose names 
I am not quite certain, thus show- 
ing hedge-rows are not to be con- 
demned entirely. — W. H. Latch- 
ford, 1, Plumber's Place, Clerken- 
well ; February 16, 1857. 
NEW BOOKS. 
The Tbansactions of the En- 
tomological Society of Lon- 
don, Vol. Part 2, 1856, 
with one plate, price 2s. Part 
3, 1857, with three plates, price 
‘3s. Longman & Co. 
Monogbaph of the Genus Ca- 
Tops. By Andrew Mur- 
ray, Member of the Royal 
Physical Society of Edinburgh ; 
of the Entomological Society of 
France ; of the Entomological 
Society of Stettin, &c. (Re- 
printed from the Annals and 
Magazine of Natural History 
for 1856.) 
The papers in the above two 
parts of the ‘Transactions’ that 
are of interest to the majority of 
English entomologists are — 
I. One in Part 2, intituled 
“ How may the Onward Progress 
of the Study of Entomology be 
best furthered?” By H. T. 
Stainton, Esq. The author thus 
sums up : “ The substance of the 
deductions arrived at, in the pro- 
gress of this enquiry, is as follows : 
1. “ Let each student of Ento- 
mology restrict himself to some 
limited field of investigation.’’ 
2. “ Let each make known the 
object of his peculiar predilections, 
and encourage general observers 
to communicate to him any facts 
bearing upon it.” 
3. “ Let each, as soon as he has 
acquired and digested a sufficient 
amount of knowledge, publish it 
in an intelligible fonn, not re- 
stricting himself solely to details, 
but wherever opportunities occur, 
generalising the subject as much 
as the extent of his knowledge 
will permit.’’ 
This is good, but we would 
add a caution against making 
general deductions from a limited 
field of observation. Most of the 
errors in systematic writing arise 
from this cause ; things appear to 
be generally true, and possibly arc 
so, within a certain range, anil yet 
I 
