926 JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY, Vol. XVIII. 



Uossids, Psychids ; all these rise out of Zygaenids, to which are linked a group 

 comprising Pyralids, Tortricids, Sesiids, Tineids, the last rising with Hepialids 

 out of Micropterygidse. As a matter of working convenience, the butterflies, as 

 represented by Nymphalidas, 3atyrida\ Erycinidae, Pierida?, Lycsenida;, 

 Papilionidse, and Hesperiida? remain as a group but linked on closely to moths 

 by families little represented in India. 



Hampson's views are generally accepted in the main by English and American 

 entomologists, and since we look to him for the Fauua of India volumes of moths 

 we may accept his classification. For working purposes, it is useful to take 

 four groups ; the butterflies as commonly accepted, the Microlepidoptera to 

 include the families at the foot of the table (Zygaenidse, Pyralida:, Pteio- 

 phoridse, Sesiida), Tortricidae, Tineida? are the most important) exclusive of 

 Micropterygida; and Hepialidae, which we class separately, and leaving the 

 bulk of moths as the group Heterocera. 



With regard to nomenclature, it is to be feared that the synonyms will 

 grow and increase so long as the main object aimed at is " priority " ; it is so 

 easy to find that some older author figured or described a species universally 

 known now by some later name and so difficult to get any two men to agree to 

 the details of these priority changes. The classic case is Hampson tinning 

 our old friend Heliothis armigera into Chlorhlea obsoleta. and if Mr. (Jomber 

 will attempt to correlate the names of the Sphingidas in the Fauna of India 

 Vol. I, with those in Jordan and Rothschild's Revision, adopted by Hampson 

 in this Journal Vol. XV and XVI, he will find that he has no easy task and that 

 purely on priority, the nomenclature is wholly changed and that to use modern 

 literature and literature period to 1901 (in this case) one must know both. 



It is difficult for a working entomologist, with his whole time to give to 

 entomology, to keep touch of changes in nomenclature at all, and there can be 

 but one result, to close to all but specialists in nomenclature all tbe literature of 

 entomology prior to say, 1900, simply because of these changes in nomenclature. 

 An entomologist now, relying on the Fauna of India, could not make himself 

 understood by a worker using Hampson's catalogue of Lepidoptera Phalaenas, 

 simply because they were using two systems of nomenclature, and when one 

 considers that in America and on the Continent still more systems are in use, 

 one realises how impossible it is. 



Yet work must get done, and as the only solution, we must use the Fauna 

 of India, corrected from Hampson as far as can be, and corrected entirely from 

 the catalogue of Lepidoptera Phalaenae so far as it goes. 



In Butterflies, Bingham's extremely practical and sane nomenclature in the 

 Butterfly volumes will, we trust, be the standard for India for many years 

 to come. In Micro-lepidoptera we have yet to get a system from Mr. Meyrick. 

 If I may advise I would say that all Indian workers should agree to do this, 

 not taking heed of other writers especially if they are not dealing with 

 Indian forms. If one were to try to correlate Swinhoe for instance, with 

 Hampson, chaos and confusion alone could result. 



