260 [October, 



stands next in the List fo the Litter abominable name. In tliis case there is only 

 one way to deal with tlie difficulty, viz., to emend obscurusella to obscurella and to 

 abolish this name for another species by giving a new name to No. 5815, which 

 being still unrecognised may well be re-christened perobsCUrella, n.ll. 



I have mentioned one instance in which addition is made to synonymy by 

 erroneous spelling, there are others, as on page 491 we read 553n, " vicarilis, Zeller," 

 which should be vicarialis, Z., as originally printed ; but one of the worst is No. 

 5729. The name " basquella " owes its existence to the present Catalogue. 

 Chambers in both the references there quoted used " basqueell<i," which in his 

 "Index" [Bull. US. GG-. Surv., IV, 87, 142 (1878)] he corrected to " bosquella," 

 now quoted as a synonym, the name being founded on " Bosque Co., Texas," as I 

 have it in the iiand-writing of Bolfrage, who resided there. Chambers' own cor- 

 rection should surely have been accepted, but the addition to synonymy, like the 

 original error, can only be regarded as a lapsus calami ; I mention it merely to 

 extinguish the threatened epidemic due to this variable germ, see Wlsm., Pr. Z. 

 See. Lond., 1897, 75, and Busck, Proc. US. Nat. Mus., XXV, 864 (1903). 



No. 5595 is another instance of an author's error having been unnecessarily 

 perpetuated. Dr. Dietz described this species as " atrupictella," but in the expla- 

 nation of the plate it is correctly given as " atropictella," which name is omitted 

 from the Catalogue. Is this a struggle for consistency jAus priority ? and if so, 

 must we continue writing "Jiavib is," which was published under identical con- 

 ditions [Swinh., Cat. East and Austral. Lp.-Het. Oxf. Mus., I, 62 (1892)] for 

 "Jlavibasis." 



On page 577 Ilypioclupns is wrongly printed " llypocoipus ;" on p. 4-72 Acleris 

 is wrongly "Alceris ;" and on p. 569 Xylesthia is wrongly " Xylestia." 



At some future time it may be desirable to call attention to some doubtful 

 points in the sequence of genera and to the use of certain generic names, but at 

 present I will only mention one or two. 



Eriocephala, Crt., is wrongly used on p. 581. Micropteryx, lib., is the Erio- 

 cephala of Curtis, while Eriocrania, Z., is the correct genus for the leaf-mining 

 species referred to by numerous authors under lliibner's name. 



Promiba (p. 577) also requires correction. 'I he earliest reference to Pronuba 

 yuccaseUa, Ililey, is Nature, VI, 444 (London, 26. IX. 1872), thus Tegeticula alba, 

 Zeller (1873), becomes an undoubted synonym, but Dr. Dyar has overlooked the 

 fact that Pronuba, Riley, is homonj'mous with Pronula, Thoms. (18fi0) Col., the 

 insect should therefore be known as Teijeticula yuccaseUa, Kilcy. 



On page 526 we read " Dasycera, Haworth, Lep. Brit., 524, 1829." Haworth 

 never used this name at all, the error has been copied from the European Catalogues ; 

 Haworth published the name as Dasycerus {vide Hw., Lp. Br., 526), but for this 

 QHcophora, Ltr. («ec auct.) should be substituted [see Wlsm. and Drnt., Ent. Mo. 

 Mag., XXXiV, 34 (1898)], and Bork/iausenia, lib., must supplant (Ecophora, 

 auct. («ec Ltr.), at least as far as minutella, L., lib., is concerned. 



It was Stephens who [Syst. Cat. Br. Ins., II, 199 (1829)] proposed the new name 

 Dasycera because " Dasycerus : Genus Coleopterorum. Vide Latr. Or. III. 19." 



The date of the last part of Haworth's Lepidoptera Britannica is 1828 (not 

 1829), vide Mag. NH., I, 348-9 (London, IX.1828). 



On page 511 Mr. Busck sinks Catastega, Clms., as u synonym of Gelechia, Hb. 



