42 
are necessary : (1) The establishment of a separate Publication Fund. 
(2) lhe distinct separation of the work of our two Secretaries, one to 
act as General Secretary, the other as Reporting and Minuting Secre¬ 
tary. Unless something of this kind be done, and unless we actually 
obtain, and publish annually, full digests of our remarks and dis¬ 
cussions, I say most decidedly that, in my opinion, we are stultifying 
ourselves as a scientific society. 
THE year’s WORK ENTOMOLOGICALLY. 
Nothing very startling has been brought before the entomological 
world this year, yet the year has been one of steady progress. ' The 
field workers have added a few new species to the British list. The 
Hon. N. C. Rothschild has added two new fleas ( Typhlopsylla penta- 
canthiis and T. dasycnemus). Mr. Newstead has added several Coccids— 
Aspidiotus cydoniae, A. hederae, A. succicola, Coccus tomentosus ; one 
Hemipteron has also been added, viz., Kermes varieyatus. Mr. Meade 
has added a new fly —Phorocera incerta, Mr. Lucas has described and 
figured the earwig, Annolabis annulipes, whilst two others have been 
added to the list, viz., Eorficula lesnei and Pycnoscelus indicus, the latter 
certainly an introduced species. The coleopterists, chiefly by the 
sub-division of previous synonymic mixtures, add Aleocliara succicola, 
Exomias pyrenaeus, Hornalota pruinosa, Platystethm alutaceus and 
Tachys parvulus. The additions to the Hymenoptera are only one below 
the dozen, viz., Acampsis altemipes, Allantus distinguendus, Cilissa 
melanura, Dolerus aericeps, Hedychridiuui coriaceum, Mesochorus tetricus, 
Neonurm halidaii, Polyblastus annulicornis, Psen concolor, Tent/ire- 
dopsis nassata and T. spreta. Mr. Kane has added a new moth, 
Platyptilia tesseradactyla, and this appears to be all. There may be 
another species or two that I have overlooked, but still this list makes 
it quite evident that the collectors of British Lepidoptei’a have done 
little except catch already well-known species. 
Among the publications, one notices with pleasure that there are 
fewer stupid things published year by year in the magazines, and the 
level of the articles that one feels obliged to read is steadily increasing. 
Among the best papers of the year, important to British entomologists, 
are Marshall’s “ Monograph of the Braconidee,” Latter’s “ Prothora- 
cic gland of Dicranura vynula," Dixey’s “ Mimetic Attraction,” all 
published in the Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 
where also is the report of an important discussion on “ Homajochro- 
matism in Butterflies.” Then there is Saunders’ “ Notes on collecting 
Aculeate Hymenoptera,” a paper which ought to attract many recruits 
to a little worked order. Lepidopterists will, however, be more pleased 
with the fact that Porritt has edited, with his usual skill and success, 
another of the excellent volumes of Buckler’s “Larvae of British 
Butterflies and Moths.” Mayer’s two excellent articles, “ On tlio 
Wing, Wing-scales and Pigments of Butterflies and Moths,” and 
“ On the Coiour and Colour-patterns of Moths and Butterflies,” are 
both excellent productions, and, as they are in our library, can bo 
read by all, even without purchase. Standfuss, abroad, has published 
some of his results on Hybridity, in his Iiandbuch der Valdarktischen 
Gross-Schmetterlinye; and Groto, in “ Die Schmetterlingsfauna von 
Ilildesheim,” gives us a new classification of the butterflies. Our 
friends in Ireland and Scotland have been practically dumb. Scienti¬ 
fically, it may bo said, that entomology is stagnant in Scotland, whilst 
