REVIEWS. 
65 
may be forgiven for excluding it. Not so easily, however, for his silent 
exclusion of three beautiful insects—Chrysophanus chryseis, Hippothoe, and 
Virgaureas—the first and last of which can scarcely be denied, unless he 
will consider them extinct, and then they might have had a passing notice 
in the course of the Opr]vo£ over the now extinct Dispar, while the Hip¬ 
pothoe, if not regarded as a variety of Dispar, has a good right to be 
noticed as a native species, as its claims to be indigenous, however tradi¬ 
tionary, cannot be positively refuted, and, indeed, are by no means despi¬ 
cable. On the other hand, we have figure and notice of Cynthia Hamp- 
stediensis, which has no claim to be esteemed British, having been in¬ 
troduced into the lists by a merely accidental error.* The original figure 
of the insect has been copied and recopied from a sort of traditionary res¬ 
pect for this, we believe, unique discovery; but, certainly, in a work in 
which Chrysophanus chryseis, Hippothoe, and Yirgaurese do not appear, 
Cynthia Hampstediensis is out of place. Again, Cynthia Huntera, which 
Mr. Morris expressly calls “ an American species,” appears with figure and 
ample description. Similarly, Argymnis aphrodite—of which he says, 
“ This is an American species”—is treated with great respect, we know 
not whether on account of the remarkable fact which our author senten- 
tiously announces, that “ it is unquestionable that a specimen was taken in 
an undoubted [sic] wild state in Upton Wood, a few miles from Leaming¬ 
ton.” We never had the pleasure of capturing an undoubtedly tame 
butterfly, nor should we know how to define the expression. 
We do not complain of the introduction of the figures of these in¬ 
sects ; on the contrary, we should be glad if figures of all exotic species 
captured in this country were preserved, with particulars of then’ capture; 
what does seem objectionable is the introduction of such species, to the ex¬ 
clusion of others, which have a right to appear in a work like the present. 
The descriptions of the insects are, in general, sufficiently accurate for 
identification, though they fall short of the scientific accuracy of some other 
works; this is, however, in all probability, the result of the principle which 
pervades the whole book, of excluding, as far as possible, all purely scien¬ 
tific terms and details, which, while it has its advantages in making the 
work more intelligible to the unscientific, for whom it is written, bends, in 
some degree, to diminish from the perspicuity of these minute descriptions, 
the necessity for which clearness first rendered the introduction of these 
terms requisite. The figures themselves are, for the most part, very good, 
* Mr. Dale’s remarks in a letter read before the Dublin University Zoological Associa¬ 
tion (vide “Proceedings of Societies,” p. 115) explains how the mistake occurred in re¬ 
gard to this species. 
VOL. II. 
F 
