212 
Economic Entomology . 
[April, 
the so-called goatsucker, —would have by no means an un- 
favourable influence. We must even declare our opinion 
that the preservation of winged game, especially partridges 
and pheasants, is from this point of view a boon to the 
farmer, and any change in the law which would render such 
preservation impossible would tend to the increase of noxious 
inserts. The pheasant is a most diligent destroyer of wire- 
worms. The partridge, as well as the rook, feeds eagerly 
upon the caterpillars of the turnip-moth and other destruc- 
tive larvae. Hence the eradication of game might prove a 
very serious mistake. 
The late Edward Newman frequently cautioned the public 
that if we increase the quantity of any special crop so as to 
attract some special insedfl, and at the same time destroy the 
birds which feed on such insert, we must expe6t to suffer. 
Miss Ormerod repeatedly calls attention to the services of 
the ladybirds (Coccinellidae) in freeing the hop and other 
plants from Aphides. It is unfortunate that many people 
are ignorant enough to confound the ladybird with the bed- 
bug, and destroy it accordingly, We do not see mention 
made in this connexion of the Telephori (soldier- and sailor- 
beetles). These creatures are more adtive and voracious 
than the ladybirds, and generally more numerous, so that 
their utility as destroyers of plant-lice is proportionally 
greater. 
From the study of this book, and indeed from that of 
Economic Entomology in general, certain very important 
biological lessons may be learnt. Among the prominent 
tenets of the Old Natural History it was formally laid 
down that the diet of every animal species was constant, 
the structure of the stomach and intestines, and even the 
chemical character of the gastric juice and the bile, &c., 
being specially arranged accordingly. This was theory, or 
rather assumption. Careful observation teaches us some- 
thing very different. We find that a species, as it spreads 
into new habitations, sometimes alters its diet, and thus 
suddenly becomes a scourge to the farmer. We see, 
also, that animals even when not pressed by hunger — and 
much more when this is the case — will consume nourishment 
quite at variance with our traditional opinions. The cata- 
logue of living beings which are either purely carnivorous or 
purely herbivorous is not nearly so extensive as it was 
formerly supposed. 
Another point which has come of late into very distindt 
prominence is that the organisation of an animal, and the 
general character of the group to which it belongs, are no 
