REVIEWS OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. 
105 
and at the same time a significant manifesto that the said public is beginning to 
take some little interest in the science. 
One thing only detracts from the gratification arising from the publication of 
the works just mentioned. In order to place natural-historical works at a price 
within the reach of the majority of students, there must be a demand for them. 
Every thing tending to lessen this demand is calculated to do injury to the 
interests of the science. It is evident that the publication of two works at the 
same time having very similar objects must do this, as the circulation of each 
will necessarily be considerably lessened by the rivalry. Nevertheless, we find 
Messrs. Curtis and Stephens announcing descriptive synopses of British insects, 
and Mr. Shuckard issuing Elements of British Entomology , which, from the 
prospectus, we have no doubt is almost exactly similar in its design to Mr. 
Westwood’s Introduction. Why is this-? Are the provinces of labour in the 
entomological field so few as to render it necessary for the workers to clash ? Or 
must we attribute it to a more inexcusable cause—to the existence of feelings 
which every man is bound to banish from his scientific pursuits ? It is only fair 
to add that we have reason to believe that Mr. Curtis’s intention of publishing a 
Synopsis was known before Mr. Stephens announced his Manual; and that 
Mr. Westwood’s first part had appeared ere Mr. Shuckard’s Elements were 
advertised. Whatever blame there is in this matter, is consequently due to 
Messrs. Stephens and Shuckard. 
Having performed what we considered our duty, in drawing attention to the 
above facts, let us turn to the work of which the present is more particularly a 
review. And here we have pleasure in stating that the felicity of the design is 
equalled by the execution, and that to Mr. Westwood’s Introduction , which has 
principally reference to the higher divisions, the generic illustrations by Messrs. 
Spry and Shuckard will form a worthy companion. Nor is such a publication 
unnecessary. Rcemer’s Genera Linncei et Fabricii illustrata is indeed a beautiful 
work, with figures of superior boldness and accuracy, but then it must be remem¬ 
bered that it only illustrates a tithe of the genera now found in our catalogues ; 
and Curtis’s British Entomology , to which that objection is of course not 
applicable, is unfortunately too dear for the convenience of the many. Mr. Spry 
has delineated the insects accurately, and the figures are well lithographed. We 
are sorry, however, to perceive some errors in the references to one of the plates. 
A strict investigation of the others might possibly have led to the detection of 
farther inaccuracies. As it is, however, we trust the notice of the following will 
lead the Editor, by careful attention, to abolish so fertile a mode of misleading 
students, to say nothing of bringing discredit on himself. In the references at 
the foot of plate 28, fig. 6 ( Oiceoptoma ) is designated Necropliorus ; fig. 7 ( Necro - 
phorus) is called Necrodes ; and fig. 8. ( Necrodes) is stated to be Oiceoptoma . 
vol. v.— no. xxxv. o 
