The text below is grayed out because it is not intended to be read. It is a necessarily imperfect OCR of the original and is only used by a search engine.
364
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
BOOK REVIEWS
The Moths of America North of Mexico including Greenland, by R. B. Dominick et al, editors. E. W. Classey Ltd., and R. B. D. Publications Inc. Distributed in North America by Entomological Reprint Specialists, P.O. Box 77971, Dockweiler Station, Los Angeles, California 90007.
One of the greatest needs of students of the Lepidoptera of North America has been a definitive work on our moths, which number in excess of 10,000 species. It is practically impossible to accurately name many of the species, with the exception of some genera and a few higher groups that have been recently studied; these re-visionary studies are often scattered in the literature and are not necessarily easily available to all collectors. Now this need is being filled most adequately with the series of definitive studies that will make up this series. A total of over 50 fascicles are planned, with three or four to be published each year; hopefully the task will be completed in the next 12 years or so.
Each fascicle may cover several small families, one family, or a part of a large family, and in itself, is a taxonomic revision of the group being covered. New taxa of all ranks are described where needed; old ones are redescribed. Keys are provided to help in identification. Each species account includes a reference to the original description and to synonyms when present. Each species is diagnosed, its variation discussed, and its distribution, habitat, and whatever is known about its life history and foodplants given. Genitalia are described, and figured when pertinent. In addition, each species, its subspecies and color variants are illustrated in full color and natural size; the smaller species are being enlarged.
A standard format is being used throughout the series. The one exception is in the usage of subspecific names. The board of directors, including the four authors that have published fascicles to date, could not agree on this problem; Ferguson and Munroe use this concept, while Franclemont and Hodges do not. Ferguson and Franclemont, in their respective fascicles reviewed below, outline the pros and cons of the question. Unfortunately, Hodge's work appeared before this subject was clarified; the reader, not realizing this, may be puzzled by the way the taxa are handled.
Each fascicle is a sumptuous example of printers' art. Every one is of large size, beautifully printed on excellent paper, and contains some of the best color plates ever printed of our North American moths. To produce all this entails great expense; consequently the price per fascicle is relatively high. However, considering the above factors, plus the fact that this series will be the standard source of reference for generations to come, I know that this is money well spent. (In some ways, the Moths of North America is comparable to the Biologia Centrali-America and Seitz' Macrolepidoptera of the World; have you tried pricing or even finding copies of these to buy recently?)
This publication is being called the definitive work on our North American moths, and I try to judge the individual fascicles according to this simple definition. To achieve this status each author should know the group thoroughly, not only in North America but in other parts of the world, be thoroughly knowledgeable about the pertinent literature, have examined the types of valid names and synonyms (and designating lectotypes where needed), and studied the bulk of specimens in this country. It is also preferable to have authors that have spent considerable time, over the years, working with the group prior to publishing on it; this has not always been possible—there just aren't enough competent specialists to properly cover each and every group of the moths.
Volume 28, Number 4
365
Fascicle 21. Sphingoidea: Sphingidae, by Ronald W. Hodges. 1971. xii + 158 p., 16 pis. (14 in color), 8 halftones, 19 text figs.
The text on the hawkmoths is a thoroughly competent piece of popular writing on this group of mostly large-sized moths, numbering 115 species in the area covered. No one should have very much trouble determining the different species in this family. Hodges does not believe in the subspecies concept; unfortunately he did not mention this matter in the introduction to his paper. This will cause some confusion; geographic variation is discussed within the different species, but the names that have heretofore been used in the subspecific sense are merely listed in the species synonymies.
Hodges uses as a higher classification one apparently modified from Carcasson, thus differing from both McDunnough's 1938 Check List and Forbes' 1948 Lepi-doptera of New York; the latter two were based primarily on Rothschild and Jordan (1903). For many readers it may be the first time they have been introduced to this new higher classification; it would have been helpful if Hodges had gone into greater detail comparing the two, amplifying the reasons for this change.
The listing of the supraspecific categories is followed by a key to the genera; Hodges does not have a key for the subfamilies or tribes, although they are defined in the text. This, in turn, is followed by "partial" keys to the genera based on the pupae (after Mosher, 1918) and on the mature larvae (after Forbes, 1911). It is possible that both the latter could have been modernized with relatively little effort.
In my opinion, this fascicle does not attain the status of a "definitive work." If Hodges had taken the time to visit the American Museum of Natural History, for instance, he would have added one or two more species to the work; additional distributional data and information on flight periods would have been added for at least 30 species—almost one-fourth of the number covered in his work. There are some two dozen errors in the bibliographical citations, either in the references themselves or incorrectly giving the original combination for the names. At least two references to early stages and foodplants were overlooked.
Notwithstanding this list of criticisms, the paper is the best one ever to appear on our North American sphingids, and I would strongly advise anyone interested in the fascinating group to obtain a copy.
Fascicle 20.2. Bombycoidea: Saturniidae, by Douglas C. Ferguson. Part 2A, Citheroniinae, Hemileucinae (in part); 1971, p. 1-153, pis. 1-11 (color), text figs. 1-19. Part 2B, Hemileucinae (in part), Saturniinae; 1972, p. 154-275 + xxi, pis. 12-22 (color), text figs. 20-30.
This large family is basically tropical and subtropical in distribution, with about 65 species occurring in America north of Mexico. Ferguson did a much more thorough job of research and study than did Hodges; this is quickly recognizable when one reads the text. The last is excellently done; in fact, in my opinion it is one of the best written and most complete studies I have had the pleasure of reading, as Ferguson did an excellent job in combining the popular and scientific aspects of the subject. Of particular value is the effort that was made to fully explain many of the "sticky" problems in this group; it is such attention to detail that increases the value of this publication.
Ferguson basically follows the suprageneric classification of Michener (1952), deviating mainly in raising the appropriate subgenera to full generic status in most cases. Keys are presented to the subfamilies based on the adults, last instar larvae, and pupae (after Mosher, 1916); within each subfamily there are similar keys to the included genera. Special emphasis is given to life histories, foodplants, and the morphological characters of the larvae and pupae.
The bibliographical references and text are relatively free of mistakes and omissions. This fascicle indeed lives up to the advance billing of a definitive work.
366
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
Fascicle 13.1. Pyraloidea (in part), by Eugene Munroe. Part 1A, Scopariinae, Nymphulinae; 1972, p. 1-134. Part IB, Odontiinae, Glaphyriinae; 1972, p. 135-250. Part IC. Evergestinae; "1973" [1974], p. 251-304 -f- xx, pis. 1-13 (color), A-K (halftones).
Munroe has spent more than 25 years studying the Pyraloidea in general and the North American fauna in particular. He has done field work in practically every part of continental North America, and has visited most of the major collections and institutions in this area. His studies have taken him throughout Europe and to their museums, to Africa and to tropical America. He has built up an encyclopedic knowledge of the world fauna of the pyralids and, based on this, is setting forth the first comprehensive manual for the identification of the North American species of all families and subfamilies of the Pyraloidea. The system of classification he is proposing for our fauna is considerably different from what we have had before, with the introduction of subfamilies and tribes that are new to us. Four families are involved; one of these, the Pyralidae, is divided into 16 subfamilies. Part 1A contains the definition of the superfamily and of the Pyralidae; keys are provided to separate the families and subfamilies of the previously-mentioned family. Five of the subfamilies are covered in fascicle 13.1; each group has keys to the genera and species (when more than one is known). A number of tribes, genera, species, and subspecies are described as new. In a few cases Munroe may be splitting the taxa a bit too thin. Some are admittedly, "perhaps not really worth separating," as in some of the genera of Evergestinae, where the only differences are in the variously-shaped frontal prominences on the head. Similarly, he recognizes as distinct some species that are apparently morphologically indistinguishable except for differences in wing color only.
As in the other parts of this series, each species and subspecies is illustrated on the color plates. For the great majority, it is the first time they have been figured. The quality of some of these color plates does not seem to me to be quite as good as those in the other fascicles, but this is undoubtedly due to the smaller size of the moths, more specimens per plate (with some distracting pins being shown for the first time), and the magnification. Nevertheless, these color plates continue to be the best ever produced of our North American moths.
Parts 1A and IB each have a modest number of mistakes in the bibliographical references; IC is greatly improved, as I did not note a single one. Munroe is to be congratulated for designating lectotypes where necessary. I would like to see the work on types extended one additional step, with the depository of each being designated. This should not appreciably increase the length of the reference section of each name, and it would be an invaluable aid to present and future workers.
Munroe is to be congratulated for a piece of original work excellently done; I am eagerly looking forward to succeeding fascicles in his monumental work on our Pyralidae.
Fascicle 20, Part 1. Mimallonoidea : Mimallonidae, and Bombycoidea : Apate-lodidae, Bombycidae, Lasiocampidae, by John G. Franclemont. 1973. viii + 86 p., 11 color pis., 22 text figs.
Franclemont erects the superfamily Mimallonoidea for the single anomalous family Mimallonidae (Lacosomidae of McDunnough's Check List, 1938). The four included species are placed in three genera; of these, one genus and one species are described as new. Three families are included in this section of the Bombycoidea; all are small-sized in our area. The Apatelodidae (Zanolidae of McDunnough, 1938) contains two genera and five species; the Bombycidae contains only the introduced silkworm, Bombyx mori (Linnaeus); and the Lasiocampidae encompass 12 genera with about three times that number of species.
The main contribution in this fascicle is a new suprageneric classification of the
Volume 28, Number 4
367
Lasiocampidae, which is divided into three subfamilies and one of these into two tribes. The Neotropical representatives of this family are relatively unknown and much work needs to be done with them; when properly studied it will be interesting to find out how these species and genera fit into Franclemont's classification.
There are only two relatively large genera in our Lasiocampidae. One of these, Malacosoma, has recently been revised by Stehr & Cook (1968); this work is closely followed in the fascicle, and their key to the mature larvae, as well as pis. 1 and 2 of larvae, are taken directly. Throughout the discussion of this genus Franclemont continually refers to "the revision of the American species by Stehr (1968)." While it is true that Stehr did most, or all, of the work in that revision, it is assumed that Franclemont worked from the published revision; if this is so, then the correct reference should read Stehr & Cook, 1968, as this is how the results were published.
The other large genus is Tolype, and this represents the main original research on a specific level by Franclemont in the fascicle. He admits, in the Introduction, that there are a number of problems here, particularly in western North America, and that he did not have the time to try to solve them properly. Independently, and prior to the publication of this fascicle, I had studied our collection of this genus, mainly utilizing genitalic dissections. Franclemont's treatment of the few eastern species appears sound; in the western part of the continent his handling of the species leaves quite a bit to be desired — he, indeed, did not solve all the problems. One thing that might have helped him would have been to study the extensive material at the American Museum of Natural History. I cannot help but get the feeling that Franclemont has only hazy notions about distributional patterns of western species. For example, he gives the distribution of Tolype dayi Blackmore (on p. 44) as British Columbia, Washington, and Montana; yet, on pi. 3, fig. 34, he illustrates a specimen of dayi from Santa Cruz Co., California, which is a good 700 miles away. I had trouble comparing the drawings of the female genitalia, particularly those of the sterigma, with my dissections. Franclemont may have completely overlooked one character in the female, as nowhere did I find reference to the nature of the scales in the anal tuft; these may have good specific characters.
One point that surprised me was Franclemont's apparent ignorance of the literature. Three examples: he gave incorrect designations for the type species of both Tolype and Artace; for Tolype dayi he states that "the larva has not been described," but in reality the description has appeared twice. There are at least five other bibliographical errors.
The subspecies problem is admirably handled in this fascicle. Franclemont gives his views on why he does not utilize this concept in the Introduction. In the discussion of variability within the individual species he clearly points out when geographic variation occurs and if a name is available for that population. However, he insists on continually using the unmodified word "race" in place of subspecies or geographic subspecies. His term is not recognized by the Code; it always strikes me that this is a quaint Victorian term that is more suitable for the Olympics than for inclusion in a major entomological systematic work being published today.
Over-all, this fascicle has many excellent points. However, it also has a surprising number of drawbacks for the coverage of such a small group that entailed relatively little original research. I can hardly consider this as a definitive piece of work.
Frederick H. Rindge, Department of Entomology, the American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024.