90 
REVIEWS', 
of Fabricius were made known for the first time. An erroneous date is 
attached -to the Entomologia Systematica of Fabricius throughout; but 
this, and some other trifling mistakes of the same nature, may be easily 
rectified. After referring to the earliest description,' Mr. Walker mentions 
other authors who have the species under the same or a different name. 
The enumeration of synonyms is far from complete, but we cannot discover 
on what principle the selection has been made, mere catalogues of no 
practical utility being often referred to, while good descriptions and im¬ 
portant Monographs, such as Erichson’s of the Acroceridce , are omitted. 
The genus under which the species is to be found in the writers quoted is 
not given, nor yet (with a few exceptions) the title of the particular work. 
It cannot have been Mr. Walker’s intention to revise the entire Synonymy; 
the references are too few for this purpose, and, in many cases, too indis¬ 
criminate ; and, besides, this lies out of the province of a Fauna. The 
only use, then, of such references is to identify the species intended with 
greater certainty, and to direct collectors where to look for a more parti¬ 
cular description. For the first of these purposes, he should have specified 
the descriptions on which he has chiefly relied; for the latter, he might 
have thrown out a mass of references which are but learned lumber, and 
have selected the best description and the most characteristic figure, refer¬ 
ring to them by the title, volume, and page; and, in this case, considera¬ 
tions of practical utility would have justified, cceteris paribus , the preference 
being given to works published in Britain, or to such others as may be 
most accessible to British collectors. 
Another requisite in a work of this sort is a thorough mastery of the 
terminology, and a correct use of the scientific terms. Mr. Walker, and 
we cannot blame him for it, has adopted for the most part the phraseology 
current among the Entomologists of Great Britain, and the Dipterists in 
particular. While we have not thought it necessary to depart from this 
in reviewing his work, we do not wish it to be inferred that we approve 
of that nomenclature in general. In some parts it appears to need a radi¬ 
cal reform; especially the ill-chosen names of the wing-veins and areolets, 
which are not likely to make way against general usage and the high 
authorities by which this is sanctioned. The terms applied to the parts of 
the head in the Tachinides have little to recommend them; the computa¬ 
tion also of the joints of the antennae, inclusive of the style or arista, is 
liable to objections; as Mr. Walker himself seems to have discovered by 
the time he reached the second volume, see Tachina. In adopting that 
plan he was obviously influenced by the plausible assumption that the last 
