STAUDINGER AND REBEl's CATALOGUE. 321 



queried the populioi Strom, which was well described and recognisably 

 figured ; but as a matter of fact the name populeti turns out to be the 

 right one to adopt, the rejection of Fabricius {rfr. Stgr. Cat., ed. ii., 

 p. 113) being unwarranted. The earliest literature of this species has 

 been somewhat overlooked, but was as follows. Fabricius in his 

 "Reise nach Norwegen," p. 328 (1779) diagnosed and described it from 

 Strom's collection (more fully than in his later systematic works) as 

 Boiiihyx pnptdi, supplying details as to the larva from information 

 furnished by Strom ; the name, however, was a homonym (Bovibi/.v 

 popidi, Jj. = Poecilocampa 2)0 jiuli, Auctt.), and this Fabricius discovered 

 in 1781 (Spec. Ins., ii., p. 201) consequently substituting the name 

 of Bombi/x jwpuleti, with a reference to his "Reise." In 1783, Strom, 

 apparently not yet acquainted with the " Species Insectorum," pub- 

 lished his own account under the name of Noctua fopnli ; had this 

 been earlier than Fabricius' correction, it would have saved the name 

 of pupuli, as it escaped the homonymy (cfr. Stgr. Cat., ed. ii., p. xx., 

 on Arc/ynnis aijlaia, L.). 



Vespertaria, Thnb., is rejected as a synonym of paralellaria, Schiff., 

 which is sufficiently diagnosed, but vexpertaria is originally a Linnean 

 name, and there seems more probability that Thunberg has correctly 

 determined it than that Schifi'ermiiller (who uses the name for 

 another species) has done so ; indeed Fabricius and Illiger both agree 

 with Thunberg, and it would probably be best to use vespertaria, L., 

 for the Epione (as has been done in England for so long), and to 

 substitute piarallelo-lineata, Retz., p. 42, for (Larentia) vespertaria, 

 (Schiff.), Bkh. Corcidata, Hfn., is only cited with a query to uniden- 

 taria. Haw., as is also ferruf/ata, L. — to which latter reference the 

 query is not warranted ; ferriujata, CL, is accepted, after Zeller and 

 Lampa, as the spadicearia of Schifiermiiller. Nebulata, Thnb. (for 

 diliitata, Bkh.) is rightly rejected, as it is a preoccupied name, Scopoli's 

 nebulata having been certainly a different species. Flavicata, Thnb., is 

 with equiil right sunk before luteata, Schiff". 



Concerning the changes made in Tutt's " British Lepidoptera," so 

 far as at present published, its author has brought together his evidence 

 so fully that it is unnecessary to discuss them in any detail ; suffice it 

 to say that Staudinger and Rebel have accepted the evidence as suffi- 

 cient in the case of Zi/i/aena pnrpuralis, Briinn., Narycia nionilifera, 

 Geoff., Holenobia Uchenella, L., Taleporia tubulosa, Retz., and Epxichnop- 

 terix (Whittleia) retiella, Newm., but have rejected it in the case of 

 ('ochlidion avellana, Wernb. [liniacodes, Hfn.), Heteroyenea criiciata, 

 Kn. {asellus, Schiff"., is prior), Anthrucera viciae ? Schr. ()iieliloti, Esp.), 

 DiplodtniHi Jterminata ? Geoff", [w aryinepunctella , Stph.), and Sulenobia 

 cewbrella ? L. {pineti, Z.); the reviewer agrees with their verdict in the 

 case of the first two species, but thinks the rest should have been 

 accepted in the absence of evidence against them. 



It may be here remarked that not infrequently no reason is shown 

 for the acceptance of a particular n.ime, and the lack of the "Merton" 

 signs for homonyms, &c., is often seriously felt; for instance, when on 

 p. 230 one finds bankiana, Fb. (1781) sunk as a synonym of anjentida, 

 Hb. (1787), how is one to understand the justice of the case, unless it 

 is indicated that bankiana, Fb. (1781) is a homonym ? 



On this important question of homonymy in specific nomenclature, 

 Staudinger's opinions expressed in 1871 have still been adhered to — 



