THE SUBSTITUTE. 
233 
when viewed through the medium 
of a wider experience and larger 
intelligence, are seen not to have 
the significance of general piin- 
ciples. Indeed, it seems to us 
that it would be well for ento- 
mologists if, with reference to 
generalisation, they bad the ad- 
vantage of an acquaintance with 
other divisions of the Animal 
Kingdom than the Insecta ; to 
say nothing of the desirability of 
their knowledge being extended 
to more than one order of insects. 
To attempt to systematize with- 
out facts gathered over a wide 
expanse seems to us as illogical 
as to try to build a castle upon 
the foundation and with the ma- 
terials of a cottage. 
II. Two papers in Part 3, 
respectively intituled, “ Notes on 
the Wing-Veins of Insects, by J. 0. 
Westwood, Esq., F.L.S.’’ and “A 
Revision of the British Atomariee ; 
with Observations on the Genus, 
by T. Vernon Wollaston, Esq., 
M.A., F.L.S.” Mr. Westwood’s 
paper is intended as a reply to 
one by Mr. Newman, published in 
a former part of the' Transactions,’ 
in which this author contended 
that the rays of an insect’s wing 
perform precisely the same func- 
tions as the bones of a bat’s wing, 
and that the wing of a butterfly 
is tbe exact analogue of the wing 
of a bat : Mr. Westwood adduces 
no experiments of his own, but 
contends from the observations of 
others that Mr. Newman’s theory 
is not true, and that the wing- 
rays are essentially veins. We do 
not think, however, tliat the ques- 
tion is settled, and we hope some 
of our microscopists will devote 
their attention to it. 
Mr. Wollaston’s “ Revision of 
the British Atomariae,” referring, 
as it does, to a difficult and neg- 
lected genus of Coleoptera, is es- 
pecially valuable. It is no figure 
of speech to say that the species 
of the genus, as they appear in 
Stephens’ ‘ Manual,’ are a perfect 
chaos, and the difficulty of mak- 
ing them out was increased rather 
than diminished by a reference to 
that author’s collection, where some- 
times four or five species were m ixed 
under one name, and sorneiimes 
one species had five or six names. 
We are all, therefore, under great 
obligations to the author of ‘ In- 
secta Maderensia’ for unravelling 
these mysteries, which he has done 
in his usual masterly manner. 
We quote the following remarks 
from the introduction to the paper. 
“ The confusion which has un- 
fortunately arisen through the in- 
accurate identification of the late 
Mr. Stephens, whose collection 
(now in the British Museum) must 
moreover be regarde<l as the sole 
interpreter of his very meagre and 
unsatisfactory diagnoses, has ren- 
dered the task a somewhat tedious 
one ; nevertheless, a careful collec- 
tion of his entire series (amounting, 
however, to only 111 specimens 
in all), in conjunction with the 
assistance which I have derived 
from the material which various 
friends (amongst whom Messrs. 
Waterhouse, Janson, Douglas, 
Murray, and Morris Young should 
be particularly mentioned) have 
placed in ray hands, has enabled 
me, I trust, to form a tolerably 
correct estimate as to the actual 
species which our fauna includes. 
The examination of 1,137 British 
specimens from various parts of 
the country (661 of which were 
collected by myself, and 247 by 
X 3 
