REVIEWS. 
99 
There are a few plates, which, with some exceptions, had better have 
been left out. It would also have been a great addition to the value and 
usefulness of the work, had some preliminary observations (drawn up by a 
competent hand) been prefixed to it, relative to killing, setting, preserving, 
&c., &c. It is often said, “ Catch your insect first, and then set it.” We 
entirely dissent from this aphorism. We speak from experience when we 
add, that the very first question asked by the tyro is, 11 How do you kill and 
set an insect ?” Look into the beginner’s box or drawer of insects, and you 
see one wing up, and another down, the abdomen one way and the head 
another; while the unfortunate thorax is perforated by a stake, almost as 
large as the insect itself. We need not dilate upon mites, mould, and 
grease. It may be said, these observations are to be found in other works : 
we do not think they are; at least, not in the minute and copious manner 
we could wish. But, granting that they are, it does not affect the present 
question. In a book like the present, professing to be a Manual of Ento¬ 
mology, intended, especially, to supply the wants of the beginner, these 
preliminary observations appear to us indispensable, and that they should 
have been entirely omitted is much to be regretted. 
But the great fault—one, we must candidly confess, which renders the 
work almost valueless in our eyes—is the system of nomenclature adopted 
by the author. It is calculated alike to propagate and to confirm error—* 
to render “ confusion worse confounded.” 
A few years since, Mr. H. Doubleday (admitted, on all hands, to be 
among the first, if not the first, of British entomologists) published a u Sy¬ 
nonymic List of British Lepidoptera.” It was drawn up with elaborate 
care, and immense toil; and his information was derived from the best and 
most reliable sources, at home and abroad. That it was not perfect , none 
will more readily admit than the author himself; but that it was by far 
the best thing of the kind, few, we should have thought, would have been 
disposed to deny; in proof of which, it may be added, that, unless we are 
greatly mistaken, it had no sooner appeared, than nearly all the best en¬ 
tomologists of the day re-arranged their collections in accordance with it. 
This being the case, it would have appeared strange had Mr. Stainton 
materially deviated from it, at least without assigning strong and sufficient 
reasons for doing so ; but that he should have actually ignored it seems 
incredible —-yet, such is the fact. As far as the “ Manual” is concerned, 
the “ Synonymic List” might just as well have never been published at all 
—in truth, if that is to be “the Manual,” it would have been much better 
if this never had been published. 
