NOVA ET VETERA. 39 



for the Field Lepidopterist " as showing the advance of our knowledge 

 in the last ninety years, yet it is to be remarked that Samouelle 

 repeatedly impresses upon his readers the importance of studying 

 insects in their early stages. 



The Pjnglish names of both butterflies and moths were in a transi- 

 tional stage like their scientific names are at the present day. In one 

 part of his book he speaks of the red and " white admirable" and in 

 another the red and " white Admiral"; it was subsequent to this date, 

 therefore, that these butterflies permanently assumed the names by 

 which they are now known. Again the " Camberwell Beauty " is 

 indifierently called the " White-Border," and so on. Our Author 

 raises a protest against the use of these names, and strenuously 

 advocates the acquisition of the scientific ones, and this is not to be 

 wondered at when we notice such names as " The Double Kidney " (!) 

 and the " Large Tabby " (!). 



He enumerates sixty-one British species of butterflies, and it is 

 very interesting to note the change in the last hundred years. Colias 

 hyale he calls the " Clouded Yellow," and C. edum " the pale clouded 

 yellow." He considers the latter not to be a British insect, but gives 

 the time of its appearance as August, that of C. Injale, June and 

 August. The names have evidently been transposed in later years. 



Many of his localities are evidently borrowed from Haworth, whom 

 he not infrequently quotes, though he evidently had personal know- 

 ledge of the butterflies occurring near London. P. macliaon was no 

 doubt common " near the New Forest," and P. poilalirius is not con- 

 sidered a truly British insect, " Pontia crataec/i " was found in the 

 woods near London and was no doubt common enough, " P. dapUdice 

 (Bath white) was captured by that successful and industrious entomo- 

 logist, Mr. Stephens," at Dover, in July, 1818. Melitaea cinxia was 

 in those days, as in these, " very rare in Britain," and no locality is 

 given. .V. atlialia is called J7. dictynna. He repeats Haworth's error 

 regarding the distinction of English specimens of V. antiopa by the 

 possession " of the Superior Whiteness of their borders." 



He quotes Haworth's classical description of the flight of A. iris, 

 which shows that that worthy had an intimate acquaintance with this 

 splendid insect. Those, who like myself have witnessed it, can testify 

 to its fidelity. He calls the Vv'hite Admiral Limcnitis ca)iiillo, and one 

 rather wonders what will eventually be the name of this insect ; if 

 I recollect rightly, a discussion arose about it not a great while ago. 

 In some instances both English and Latin names are different to those 

 now in use, as an example, " IHpparchia pilosella (small meadow 

 brown) " is, I presume, H. tithonus. " FJ. hlandina " was known in 

 the "Isles of Bute and Arran," but E. li(/ea was either not known or 

 its claims disregarded. Our author must on occasion be found guilty 

 of carelessness, for whereas in the first part of his book he states, " In 

 this section I shall enumerate the whole of the British species," he 

 makes no mention of some which he duly observes later on in the 

 calendar, such as " davus, the small Ringlet," " p"li/da)iia, the marsh 

 Ringlet," and "ti/p/io)!, the scarce heath," all of which are now known, 

 I believe, under the last name. And now I come to look into it, I fear 

 me I must convicc him of considerable carelessness, for how otherwise 

 can he describe in one place H. pilosdla as the small meadow brown, 

 and in another as the large heath ? Perhaps his soul is above the 



