84 
REVIEWS. 
almost or entirely neglected by the lepidopterists, were examined in detail— 
such as the structure of the palpi and fore legs, the veining of the wings, 
the articulation of the antennae, the ungues and their appendages, and 
the external marks of distinction between the sexes in the different groups. 
Many of these neglected characters were found to be of great value, not 
only as indicating family and generic, but often specific distinctions.” Such 
is the introduction, which, as being the great novelty of the re-issue, has 
received a more detailed notice. We have reason to congratulate the stu¬ 
dents, for whose sake this addition has been made, on the decided improve¬ 
ment in the constitution of “ the old book.” 
With regard to the species excluded from the re-issue, though there are 
as many as seventeen, of which descriptions and, in nearly all cases, 
figures were given in the original work, there are but four which 
were admitted as unquestionably genuine. These are—P. Podalirius, M. 
Dia, H. Briseis, and C. Hero. The supplemental plate given in the former 
edition is also omitted. The beauty of the book, as a book, is, perhaps, 
somewhat diminished by these extensive omissions; but its practical utility 
is but little impaired, and this is more than made up for by the additional 
matter which the author has, by these means, been enabled to introduce ? 
while greatly reducing the size and price of the book. 
The bulk of the work, consisting of descriptions of, and observations on, 
the various species, remains as it was, except where the difference of the 
specimens figured renders some change necessary, or additional observa¬ 
tions are inserted when fresh light has been thrown on any point, as occa¬ 
sionally happens— e.g ., under Colias Edusa, mention is made of the two 
vars. considered by Stephens as C. Chrysothema and C. Myrmidone, both 
of which were allowed distinct places in the original work, the latter as 
having some claims to be considered as British ; and in the remarks on the 
genus Melitsea additional reasons are given for adhering to the usual divi¬ 
sion of the Fritillaries into the two genera Melitaea and Argynnis, instead of 
several sub-genera, as suggested by the author. Here and there we find 
traces of a too lax revision of the original letter-press where minor changes 
were necessary, as, where we read in the old edition—“ The number of 
British species of this genus (Pieris) has been the subject of much recent 
inquiry, it having, until within the last fifteen years , been considered that 
there were but three. In 1827, however, Mr. Stephens increased the 
number to seven,” &c., which is all very well in a work published, accord¬ 
ing to the title-page, in 1841 ; but when we find the same words repro¬ 
duced verbatim in a book published in 1855, the effect is not so good, 
and would be rather puzzling to one who never saw the first edition, and 
