258 [October, 



undoubted simplicity and consequently tempting facility of the system, its conveni- 

 ence is more than doubtful. There are too many pitfalls for the unwary on this 

 attractive path ! Thus (p. 495) Dyar following Fernald adopts 07'chemia, Gn., for 

 its first exponent diana, Hb., failing to observe that the name diana is preceded by 

 a small asterisk, the meaning of which is, to quote Guenee's own words [Ann. Soc. 

 Ent. Fr., XIV (2 s.. Til), 131, Ind. Meth., IV (1845)] :— " Le signe,* place en tete 

 d'une espece, indique que je n'ai pas vu I'insecte en nature, ou que je n'ai pu I'e'tu- 

 dier sufRsamment." The type of a genus must be at least a species which clearly 

 exemplifies the characters attributed to that genus, and therefoi'C sufiiciently illus- 

 trates the author's conception when creating it. Guenee's conception of the genus 

 Orchemin can scarcely be illustrated by a species wliich he had not seen or not 

 sufiiciently studied, therefore his type must surely be found among others therewith 

 included ; but in this case Guenee names two species only, and the choice of a type 

 io thus restricted to one which he had, or one which he had not, studied. If Dr. Fer- 

 nald will forgive iny intrusion into the domain of his special field of most useful and 

 conscientious work, he will thus find himself constrained to recognise as the type of 

 Orchemia, No. 2223 (Stgr.-Ebl. Cat.) Orapholitha {Laspeyresia) gaUicana^Grn., 

 which he would probably refer to his present idea of Knarmonia, Hb. (Toriricida'). 



My Carposina crescentella (No. 5475) is in Dr. Fernald's collection ; perhaps 

 he may be able to supply the locality. 



No one can feel more deeply indebted to the authors of this new List than a 

 fellow-worker like myself, who at an almost prohibitive distance must be dependent 

 on them for such information as can enable him to pursue liis studies, and who has 

 never appealed to them in vain. 



In their yearning for truth, the only aim of all scientific research, I am confident 

 they will accept any fair criticisms in the same friendly spirit in which they are 

 offered, and there need be no hesitation on my part in calling attention to some 

 minor points in which this Catalogue seems capable of improvement : — 



Page 353 — Rolenobia is here wrongly treated as a Macro-Psychid,and included 

 between Chalia, Moore, and Uyaloscotes, Btl. ; it cannot truly be separated from 

 that portion of the Psychida which should be regarded as true Micros. 



Soler.ohia, Dp., HN. Lp. Fr. Sppl. IV, 197, 201, 428-30, 512 (1842) : Cat. Lp. 

 Eur., 358-9 (184t)). These references are omitted, and the genus erroneously attri- 

 buted to Zeller who adopted it from Duponchel in 1852. 



Pages 304-371 — The Sesiadee (». e , JEgeriadce) are here inserted between the 

 Cossidre and PyralidcB. This is one of the instances mentioned in the preface, 

 where the system adopted differs from that of Meyrick, who placed them, perhaps 

 more justifiably, in the Tineina preceding the Gplechiadm. 



Beutenmiiller's erroneous use of the name Sesia has been followed, and /Egeria 

 should be substituted. Of this more anon ! 



Pages 489-495 — Another instance of departure from Meyrick's classification is 

 that of the nyponomeutidte, which he placed between Elachisfidee and TineldeB, 

 while Dyar places them between Oelechiadce and Tortricid(V, which are followed by 

 (EcophoridfP and WaxtohaxidcB before MlachistidcB come into the line. If we regard 

 these latter as narrow-winged Hi/ponomeittid re , are we not justified in uniting the 

 two families, placing the Tortricidce between the Hyponomeutidce and the Tineidce? 



