66 THE entomologist's record. 



4. Geer, Charles tie. We do not say " of Salisbury " but " Salisbury." See 

 Linnstrom, H. — Svensk Bok-Lexicon, 1883, where he is catalogued as Geer. I do 

 not think this is quite a parallel case with Goeze. 



-5. Retzius. — I was, and am still, very doubtful about this book, and on the 

 whole am inclined to regret its inclusion. 



6. Kuehn, Beschfiftvj. Berlin, iii., 1777. — I find that he uses the names : — 



fig. 8. Pentadactyla aurantia. 

 fig. 7*9. ocella fiava. 

 tig. 10. Phalaena marmorea. 

 I do not think we can quote his Tinea acalelht in the face of such a jumble. 



7. It has always been a mystery to me why any person should doubt Linnaeus' 

 views as to his genera of lepidoptera. They are clearly " Plialaeiia^'' and 

 " Pdpi/io," and nothing else (but Sphinx). In his Sij.^t. .V<U. (editio duodecima 

 reformata), at the end of Tom. I, pars 2, we find "'Nomina generica," "Nomina 

 trivialia Papilionum," and "Nomina trivialia Phalaenarum," each of which is 

 definite enough. Graelin also takes no heed of the " phalanges" of the genera of 

 LinuEEUs, in his index. On this matter consult the divisions made by Linnaeus 

 of his genus (Iri/llns in the 10th ed. of the Si/st., compare it with those in the l'2th, 

 and afterward with his divisions of his genera Cicada, Salino, Siniia, etc. We 

 must treat these things as a whole and not from one standpoint. I have been 

 amused more than once to find that those who have argued over Linnaeus' genera 

 of Lepidoptera had not known that he had given an index to his book. 



I am very pleased that you have raised these questions, and if 

 you think this reply is of any interest I shall be glad if you care to 

 print it as an expression of opinion." 



I need only add that I think it will be well if all will agree to the 

 principle of rejecting all incidental binomials in " multinomial books," 

 and I shall be quite ready to relinquish Gladbach's " Beschreibung " 

 and Kuehn's " jumble "; but I am still by no means convinced that 

 we have any right to set aside Goeze's third volume. The " corre- 

 spondence " which Mr. Sherborn most kindly submitted to my inspec- 

 tion seems far from decisive, or, at least, it does not touch the claims 

 of vol. iii, which does not seem quite on a footing with the earlier 

 volumes, if one may judge by the opinions of some prominent coleop- 

 terists. Goeze's work is very valuable as providing a true binomial 

 nomenclature for many of the species so excellently described by 

 Degeer and other early authors, and, therefore, forms a far sounder 

 basis, in many cases, than the poorly-diagnosed species of Fabricius 

 and many other writers of the period. 



Notes on the Habits of Hyles (Deilephila) euphorbiae. 



By H. LEONARD SIGH. 



On ^lay 'i^rd, 1901, I received seven pupjp of foreign origin from 

 Yorkshire. From one pupa two parasitic larva? had emerged through 

 round holes, one situated in the wing-case and one in the abdomen. 

 From the remaining pupa' six imagines emerged; in one or two cases, 

 however, the hindwings did not fully expand. Dates of emergence were 

 as follows : — July 8th, one S , wings expanded and dry by 8.15 p.m. ; 

 July 12th, two <? 3 , both dry by 8 a.m. ; July ITth, one 3 ; July 18th, 

 one 3 , dry by 10.30 p.m. ; July 21st, one § , dry by (5 a.m. This, 

 though a 2 , emerged from the smallest pupa. The proboscis of this 

 pupa was dark brown, apparently owing to an injury, and the moth's 

 tongue was imperfect. It could be coiled up, as usual, but the apical 

 third was almost black, and this portion of the two halves would not 

 unite. 



As the moths emerged I placed them in a large case, constructed 



