STAUDINGER AND REBEl's CATALOGUE. 323 



Aurivillius' recent determinations of some Fabrician types [Ent. 

 Tills., xviii., p. 139) seem to have been altogether overlooked. 



With the matter and the manner of citations there is in general 

 little fault to find, if we except the occasional omission of important 

 synonyms, already criticised. In a very few instances, however, the 

 orif/inal reference is not given for a name, doubtless in most cases by 

 oversight ; thus in Theil I., p. 287, the name sexalata should be 

 referred to Retzius, p. 50 (1783), and, therefore, has priority; on p. 401 

 under spluriformis, and in some other places, reference to the " S.V." is 

 omitted ; on p. 322, if diversata, Schitf., be a " catalogue name," then 

 dicersata, Gerning, Frankf. Btr., ii., p. 457, cum fig. (1780) should 

 stand as earliest reference, and should no doubt supplant the pulverata 

 of Thunberg (1784); in Theil II. (which this review does not profess to 

 cover), on p. 9, no. 157, it is noticed that the original reference for 

 the name ci/rilU (Costa, Dizion. di A(/ric., ? 1840) is dropped altogether ; 

 it is there described as a new species, hence presumably the cirilellus of 

 the Fauna is subsequent thereto. 



There is occasional ambiguity through the citation of un-named 

 figures in such a way that it would be assumed that the name last 

 indicated was there applied ; ejj., Svierinthiis hybr. hybridus is named 

 by Staudinger, but the reference reads as though it were by Westwood ; 

 such confusion could have been avoided if " sine nomine " had always 

 been quoted after such figures, as is done, for instance, on p. 314 under 

 var. cnrzoni, Gregs. 



Instances are noticed here and there of a citation under the wrong 

 name in the synonymy ; one example taken at random is under Cilix 

 ylaucata, Scop., where Barrett's "British Lepidoptera " is cited to this 

 name instead of to spimda. But such cases are by no means frequent, 

 and are, of course, due merely to inadvertence in arranging the order of 

 the references ; on the whole, this part of the work has been very care- 

 fully done. 



The actual author of a name also occasionally fails to obtain his 

 rightful recognition through another cause — the publication of his 

 work under the editorship of another person. Thus while Libijthea 

 celtis is correctly referred to " Laicharting, in Fuessl. Arch.," C'hesias 

 spartiata is given as by Fuessly ; is it not " Herbst, in Fuessl. 

 Arch. " ? 



In only very few cases has the law of priority been deliberately 

 disregarded, but this cannot be too strongly deprecated, as it would, 

 if allowed to go unchallenged, vitiate the whole principle of which 

 Staudinger professed himself so zealous an advocate. On p. 19 ednsa, 

 F. Mant. is given the preference over crocem, Fourcr. (1785)" ; the 

 date of the "Mantissa" is prudently left unquoted, but everybody 

 knows that it is 1787. On p. 172 Hadena maillardi, Hb.-G. [—Cnj- 

 modes iwidis, Ijei.), is dealt with in a topsy-turvy manner ; it is not 

 dated, but certainly cannot be prior to Hiibner's death in 1826, yet 

 dijjlua, Hb. Zutr. (1823) is given as a variety of it, instead of as the 

 original (literary) type ! Unfortunately this is not quite an unique 

 case ; on p. 303 a similar performance with regard to liu/ubrata, 



* Whether this species be, as Aurivillius considers, a variety of the South 

 African electa, L. (nom. vetustius) is perhaps as yet " not proven," and it is better 

 to write of the European species as croceus (Geoff.) Fourcr. 



