REVIEWS. 
17 
tion of the several parts. Mr. Lubbock’s sensible remarks “ on the objects 
of a collection” ought naturally to be appended to the introductory portion, 
where similar subjects are treated of; and Mr. Scott’s account of Fochabers 
and its Lepidoptera ought not to be so disunited from the part of the book 
devoted to that order. Moreover, a little more “ collusion” between the 
writers might be advantageous, as the same ideas under different forms of 
expression occur more than once. En passant , we quote a few lines from 
Mr. Scott’s paper :— 
“ Happiness seemed to have her throne here—everything was so peaceful; and 
that strange sensation which creeps over every one who gets lost in his contempla¬ 
tion of the sublime was ever present— 
‘ That undefined and mingled hum, 
Voice of the desert, never dumb ’— 
stealing over all, now louder, now softer; and just as we think it dying away alto¬ 
gether, it bursts forth again with such a swell that he must indeed walk incon¬ 
siderately who does not listen in mute wonder. For yards round the tops of the 
trees we may hear and see the merry throng of gnats, they are so numerous. Then 
the grasshopper chirrups forth its part; some wandering bombus, too, sweeps by 
with deeper notes ; and, deeper still, a stercorarius completes the harmony.” 
We would like to see such descriptions of nature a little more fre¬ 
quently. 
The opening chapter, on the advantages of the study of natural history 
in general, would gratify us very much, did it not seem a little out of place 
in the Entomologists' Annual. But to the second chapter we most de¬ 
cidedly take exception. Here we find the old distinction of entomologists 
into collectors and observers again drawn out, with a comparison of their 
respective pleasures! Now, it is obvious that these two characters should 
be united in every entomologist, be the amount of time he bestows on the 
subject ever so small: why, then, not show the necessity for their union, 
and disavow, once for all, their claims for specific distinction? 
The results of this year’s acquisition have been somewhat remarkable. 
Lepidoptera appeared in most unusual numbers, and, among other novelties? 
were produced two new Sphinges (one of which is figured in the plate); 
of Hymenoptera there was a singular dearth; while Coleoptera continued 
much as usual.* 
What may have been the condition of the other orders, the sectarian 
spirit of collecting but the favoured three as yet prevails too widely to per¬ 
mit us to do more than imagine; but we trust that many years will not 
elapse before a more liberal and extended view of created things will dis¬ 
cover itself in the Entomologists’ Annual. 
* An error of inadvertence occurs in Mr. Janson’s paper on Coleoptera, which 
ought to receive correction. He has several times had occasion to quote Mr. 
Haliday’s papers read before the Dublin University Zoological Association, but in 
each case he has given the title as the Dublin “ Natural History Society.” 
VOL. III. 
c 
