373 
No. 151.] 
Remarks upon the Insects named in the above list. 
Whatever may be the future political destiny of Algiers, St 
may truly be said that in science France has there achieved caw- 
quests which will endure, and will contribute to the glory of lifer 
name in all coming time. Whilst the subjugation of that province 
was in progress, the specimens of natural history gathered and 
sent home by some of the officers of her armies, served to indicate 
the rich field for research which there existed; and immediately 
upon its becoming annexed to the French empire, a number of 
her men of science were commissioned and sent hither to make a 
full examination of its natural productions, and thus ascertain its 
resources. The results of this survey are embodied in the great 
work of M. Lucas, published by order of the government; and 
of the specimens collected, a portion of the insects have, through 
Prof. Milne-Edwards, been presented to the museum of our State 
Agricultural Society. These are enumerated in the above cata¬ 
logue, and I am requested to furnish such a notice of them as will 
give visitors to the museum, and others, some acquaintance with 
their character and habits. As no copy of the work of M. Lucas, 
in which the history of these insects is given, is accessible to pe, 
we are only able to speak of their habits generally, from our ac¬ 
quaintance with other insects to which these are related. A refer¬ 
ence to that work, moreover, wmuld show whether, as we suspect, 
a mistake may not inadvertently have been made, in some in¬ 
stances, in the above list. Thus, No 57, the Anomala Juld of 
Fabricius has all along been regarded as a different species from 
his Vitis , though they have been entered as being synonymous. 
Specimens of Vitis in my cabinet, from the island of Corfu, would 
appear to be quite distinct from this Algiers insect; still, the vine- 
chafer of our own country (Anomala atrata Fab., Calebs Germ., 
etc.) illustrates how very widely in this group individuals of the 
same species may vary from each other. Of No. 118 also, we ob¬ 
serve that the Campsomeris collaris is described as a new species 
from the island of Java, by St. Fargeau ( Ilymenopteres , vol. iii, p. 
498), nor does the insect before us correspond with the description 
of Scolia collaris given by Fabricius (Ent. Syst. vol. ii, p. 233). 
Of course all such doubts an these will instantly be resolved hy a 
reference to the work of M. Lucas. 
