348 THE entomologist's record. 



been used by Hufnagel in 1767; aureolaria (Schiff.) Fb., is the correct 

 name for this species. 



On p. 297, for qnadrifasciaria, CI., read tjitadrifasciata, CI. {aria, 

 L.F.S.). 



On p. 302, the species cited as Larentia sociata, Bkh. (a homonym) 

 is without doubt the altcrnata of Miiller, " Faun. Frid.," p. 51 (1764), 

 as further ehicidated by his citation {Xool. Dan. J'r., p. 129) of Schaffer 

 pi. 126, 2; even if Schiift'er's very bad figure viii/ht be molliKjinata, Hb. 

 or rifctta, Hb., Miiller's diagnosis could not possibly apply to any but 

 the blackest (which is also the most generally common) of the group, 

 i.e., to sociata, Bkh. {ncc Fb.)) 



On p. 304, hifaciata (r. bifasciata), Haw., " Lep. Brit.," p. 334, 

 should supplant unifasciata , Haw., I.e., p. 335, as even page-priority 

 now has to be religiously observed ; Snellen, " Vlinders," made this 

 correction in 1867. 



On p. 306, fiircata, Thnb., should replace sordidata, Fb., instead of 

 being merely cited with a query ; surely Staudinger cannot have con- 

 sulted the original or he would have seen that Werneburg's determina- 

 tion is quite certainly correct. 



On p. 315, the sinking of subfidrata, Hw., as a " v. ? " of Tcphro- 

 chjfitia fiucccntiiriata, L., is certainly erroneous, and it is a pity that the 

 statement " sp. div. Stgr. esse videtur " was not allowed greater 

 weight (c/V. Sheldon, Ent. Eec, vii., p. 197). 



On p. 320, the synonymy of dchiliata and vJduerata does not seem 

 perfect ; if Hb. 462 is not the bilberry species, the latter, figured by 

 Hiibner at fig. 466, cannot retain the name of debiliata by the strict 

 law of priority. 



On p. 327, the reference for Ennoxios fitscantaria, Haw., Prodr, 

 Lep. Brit., ought to be bracketed oft" as a noiiwn nudion, being accom- 

 panied by absolutely no descriptive matter. The earliest deacription is 

 in " Lep. Brit.," p. 295, under the erroneous name carpinaria 

 {nee Hb.). 



On p. 330, the date for Oarapteryx, Leach, should be 1814, not 

 1815 {Zo(d. MiKcell., i., p. 79). 



On p. 336 (Biston) stiataria, Hfn., and (Ainjdiidasis') betulavia, L., 

 are still erroneously separated in different genera. 



On p. 384, xxnder Zi/i/aena Jilijiendidae, the hiiipoerepid in of Stephens 

 [nee Hb.) is wrongly given as var. tutti, Rebel, n. nom. ; Rebel has 

 overlooked Dupont's prior correction of the nomenclature (Zytjenes 

 Noniiand., p. 29, 1900 — first published in 1899 ?, in Btdl. Sac. Sci. 

 Nat. Klbenf), and tntti, Rebel, will have to sink as synonym of 

 sfepheim, Dupont. 



On p. 393 {PaeJn/telia) unieolor, Hfn., may have to be supplanted 

 by hirsnta, Poda, p.' 102 (1761), or diibia, Scop., p. 268, no. 699 

 (1763) ; both are referred here without question by Rogenhofer [Lep, 

 HeiiiHtein, p. 15). 



In connection with the vexed question of the bee-hawks, readers 

 will be interested to learn that Mr. Kirby's corrected determination of 

 fucifornm, L., for the broad-bordered species has been accepted, but 

 that scabinsr/', Z., has been chosen for the narrow, tiUjns, L., being only 

 cited with a query. 



The general get-up of the book is in most respects similar to that 

 of 1871, and is on the whole very good. Those who have attempted 



