82 THE entomologist's record. 



Dr. Wood contributes a most interesting article on " Oviposition and 

 the ovipositor in certain lepidoptera" {E.M.M.). 



The Guernsey Natural History Society held a very successful meeting 

 at Guille-Alles Library in April. The subjects discussed were " The 

 Clays and other superficial deposits in Guernsey,'' and " The Flora of 

 Guernsey, compared with that of West Cornwall." 



Our readers will hear with regret that our correspondent, Mr. R. 

 Gillo of Bath, died on April gth. 



IgCIENTIFIC NOTES. 



The sub-genera Viminia, Cuspidia, and Bisulcia, Chapman. — 

 Mr. A. G. Butler proposes sinking these names respectively for Fha?-etra, 

 Tricena and Ardomyscis of Hiibner. I would ask whether Dr. Chapman's 

 criticism {Record i., pp. 269-270) of Mr, Butler's superficial paper 

 {Trans. Enf. Soc. Loud., 1879) on this genus had anything to do with 

 this result. As Dr. Chapman has not finished his paper, Mr. Butler 

 cannot know the whole of Dr. Chapman's arguments. Mr, Butler can 

 only arrive at the substitution of Hiibner's names by making the science 

 subservient to names and not the names to science. Fharetra, Hb. 

 Butler by replacing Viminia, Chpm. with this name would make 

 Hiibner's Pharetra include a part of that author's Ardomyscis and at 

 least three outside genera, which could never possibly have been that 

 author's intention. Again he would include Hiibner's Hyboma, 

 JochecRra, Acronicfa and part of Ardomyscis in the same author's Triccna, 

 which appears ridiculous, and if this be allowed, Hiibner's diagnosis 

 cannot be worthy of Dr, Chapman's notice, Hiibner's Ardomyscis does 

 not even contain Dr. Chapman's type of Bisulcia, but contains on Mr. 

 Butler's own showing {Enfom., pp. 111-112), a mixture of Cuspidia 

 {aceris and megacepliala) and Viminia {euphorhicB var. myricce), but no 

 trace of Chapman's type — ligustri. How in the name of common 

 sense, can Hiibner's names replace Chapman's, worked out on the 

 minute structure of ova and larvje of which no previous author seems 

 to have had the slightest knowledge ? Of course, I am probably one 

 of those "unacquainted with the laws of zoological nomenclature" as 

 understood by Mr. Butler, but common sense appears against his 

 application of them. Whatever does he mean, too, when he suggests 

 that '' Butler should be quoted as the author of the genera that Hiibner 

 indicated ? " By all means, let him be quoted if he is so enraptured 

 with " Hiibner's indications,'' but I fail to see how these hazy indica- 

 tions interfere with Dr, Chapman's exact science. — J. W. Tutt. 



The Value of the Genitalia in determining Species.— In the 

 Record, vol. ii., p. 13, the editor expresses his doubt (? Ed.) as to the 

 value of the specific characters afforded by the structure of the genital 

 armature of the male lepidoptera, and cites the opinion of a recent 

 writer in the Canadian Entomologist in support of his views. As, if I 

 mistake not, I was amongst the first — in this country at least — to study 

 the genital armature in the order lepidoptera, the result of my experi- 

 ence may be of some little interest. In the course of my studies I 

 have had occasion to examine the structure in a considerable number 

 of species and in many individuals, and have never found it to be 



