100 
REVIEWS. 
From a multitude of examples which the author’s—-we were about to 
say new, but it should be antiquated —system so lavishly supplies, we can 
only select two, viz., the genus u Lithosia,” and the genus “Notodonta.” In 
the former, Mr. Doubleday includes twelve species, a most natural and 
obvious arrangement; Mr. Stainton only eight, while the remaining four 
comprise no less than four genera ! We should be glad to learn—first, 
why these four are separated from the remaining eight ? and, secondly, 
why they are separated from each other ? All the larva* are lichen feed¬ 
ers ; all the insects (all, at least, we have met with) lie, when at rest, with 
the wings folded round the body, and in general form and appearance 
closely resemble each other. We repeat, therefore, that we should be glad 
to learn the differences which justify their separation into five distinct 
genera. 
Again, in Mr. Doubleday’s list we find “Notodonta” containing eleven 
species, while Mr. Stainton is so illiberal as only to allow it three! Seven 
of the remainder are divided into three more genera; while poor trepida, 
exiled from house and home, comprises a genus in itself—we suppose on 
account of his size, or as some trifling reparation to his wounded feelings! 
Or let us suppose “ Cucullina” (a friend of ours) to argue on this wise— 
“Why am I separated from the illustrious family of Notodonta? I have 
two humps on my back and one on my tail: why should I not go with my 
brethren “ Dromedarius, Ziczac, and Tritophus ? I am not the same 
colour , it is true; but still I think I am a pretty insect, and, moreover, 
I have the wedge on my upper wing like the rest. I demand, therefore, 
the restitution of my just rights.” 
It seems impossible to us to make a more natural genus than that of 
“ Notodonta” as given by Mr. Doubleday in his admirable list, and we 
only regret that he did not add “Ptilodontis Palpina” to it. We think 
we have a right to ask Mr. Stainton his reasons for deviating from the 
new and adhering to the old system of nomenclature. We fear he must 
be a staunch Protectionist! 
One more word with regard to an observation made by Mr. Stainton 
under the head of “ Notodontidse.” At the conclusion of the prefatory 
remarks on this family occur these words—“Pupa smooth, rarely enclosed 
in a cocoon” What can this mean ? Unless he and we differ very much 
as to what a cocoon is, this is a strange error. Having had very consider¬ 
able experience on this subject, we can confidently affirm (if we know what a 
cocoon is) that “Palpina,” “Cucullina,” “Dictaea,” “Dodonaea,” “Chaonia” 
-—in a word, the pupae of all the “ Notodontidae” are enclosed in cocoons.. 
