STAUDINGEE AND REBEL, S CATALOGUE. 



347 



of procedure it is open to question, as Boisduval in 1840 restricted 

 Brit/ii/s {IhitJnja) to cncansta diWii iiancratii. 



On p. 162, Dianthoecia cnnfipersa, Schiff., is still allowed to stand 

 as nana, Rott., notwithstanding that Werneburg and Tutt have shown 

 that it contradicts the original description of nana (Hufnagel's). 



On p. 163, its var. b is misprinted hethandica ; fortunately it was 

 correctly spelled hcthlamUca on its original publication in /r/.s- (1892). 

 But the name is a synonym ; var. ohliterac [sicj Robson and Gardner, 

 List Brit. Lcp., p. 13 (cir. 1885), Tutt, Brit. Noct.,iii., p. 38 (1892) is 

 considerably older. 



On p. 163, the name hicrnris, Hfn., is rejected iov capaincola, Schiff.; 

 there seems no adequate reason for disputing the accepted determina- 

 tion, and Hufnagel's name should be given the priority. 



On p. 164, the genus Cleoceris, B. (1840, not 1830, as printed) is 

 wrongly rejected in favour of Boinbi/cia, Stph. (nee Hb.), following 

 Hampson " Moths of India," li., p. 206 (1894). 



On p. 169, we find the genus '■'■ Liiperina" is somewhat thinned 

 down, but is still "invalid as not containing the type of the concep- 

 tion"''\" Professor Grote long ago re-named Lederer's Luperina — 

 " Ledereria,'' n. nom., but made the type virens, L. {ride, Ent. Rec, 

 viii., p. 183), which is the type of the earlier Lueeria, Heinem. (1859) 

 and is now correctly so given. Probably the Luperina of Staudinger 

 and Rebel, as now restricted, will require a new name. 



On p. 174, hepatiea, Hb., (Text) is invalid ; the name hejiatiea is 

 Clerck's and has been wrongly suppressed; is it not veaWy = tincta, 

 Brahm, as Hiibner (oliin), Freyer, Herrich-Schaffer and others 

 accepted ? If so, the hepatiea of Hiibner's text (and of our British 

 authors, &c.) must be called by the safer name of e/iaraeterea, Hb. 



On p. 186, jialiiiUs, Tutt, most certainly ought not to be given as a 

 synoni/iii of Hi/ihvecia nietitans (L.) Bkh. ; it is at the least a separate 

 variety or race. {"Acton," in the following reference is printed in the 

 wrong type, and looks as if it were a synonym instead of an author's 

 name) . 



On p. 188, hrevilinea, Fenn, is erroneously maintained in its 

 position in Xonat/ria, notwithstanding the frequent corrections (Tutt, 

 Ent. Bee., xii., p. 295 ; &c.). It should be in, or at least near, the 

 genus Leueania, 



On p. 197, and probably in some other places, is seen the incon- 

 venience of the circulation, often for many years, of manuscript names 

 in Staudinger's trade-catalogues. For the central Asiatic form of 

 Carailrina auihi<iua, Fb., there is given the new varietal name of var. 

 Iiilaris, Stgr. ; but this form has been long distributed as " var. diln- 

 eida " [efr. Tutt, Brit. Noet., i., p. 155). Ultimately it chanced to get 

 described under this name {Ent. Bee., vi., p. 228, 1895), and it will 

 consequently have to be known as var. dilueida, Prout (1895) = /(/Zrt^/".s, 

 Stgr. (1901). 



On p. 205, for anhtiim, Fb., read "notaeula, F. ]\Iant., 138; Auriv., 

 Ent. Tidskrift, xviii., p. 159 ; subtitsa, F. Mant., 152," 



On p. 259, ocularis, L., has not yet been restored to its rightful 

 place as prior to oeUxjeaiuia, Hb.; vide Tutt, "Brit. Noct.," i., p. 3, &c. 



On p. 265, trilineata. Scop. (1772) is a preoccupied name, having 



* The tyi)e of Luperina, 13., was fixed by Duponchel in 1829, and is tcstacea, 

 Hb. 



