]3(; THK entomologist's RKf'OP.rt. 



formulates the prineiples l:»y \\'liieli alone, in his judgment, nomenclature 

 can be established on a settled basis ; these are in the main those set 

 forth by the British Association in 1842. There is a good deal of 

 difference between the 18fil names and those of 1871 ; this is chiefly due 

 to the fact that in the earlier edition Staudinger still considered the 



Vienud Cataloijue entitled to rank for priority, while in the later edition 

 he to a large extent throws it ovei'board. Staudinger's nomenclature, 

 as sot forth in this 1871 Cdtalog, has been very generally adopted 

 everywhere, except in this country, and even British authors like Lang, 

 Kirby and Kan(% when they are dealing with the lepidoptera of Eui'ope, 

 abide by it. 



Coming back once more to our own coi;ntry we find as im- 

 mediate successors, and in part contemporaries, of Adrian Haworth 

 two men who Avere vehement rivals — John Curtis and James Francis 

 Stephens. Curtis was educated for the law, l)ut at an early period of his 

 life turned aside to entomology, to -which he entirely devoted his 

 energies. He l)ecitme a skilful draughtsman and engi-aver, and fur- 

 nished the illustrations for several works besides his own. iJiiring the 

 latter part of his life he lived in Islington. In 1824 he l^egan the 

 publication in monthly numbers of a series of coloured figures, with 

 accompanying letterpress, of the rarer indigenous species of the Class 

 Insecta, not arranged in any systematic order, but as the material came 

 to hand. This work, wliich extended to 16 annual volumes, is one of 

 consideral)le merit ; the figures are in the main faithful to nature, and 

 the accompanying letterpress reveals a consideraT)le ac(piaintance Avith 

 earlier literature. Stephens, Avho was a clerk in the Admiralty, and an'Iio 

 lived at Eltham, commenced a similar work on May 1st, 1827. This 

 differs from the other in being arranged systematically ; the i)ortion 

 relating to lepidoptera is in four volumes, tlie first of which appeared 

 in 1828, the second and third in 1829 ; and the fourth in 1834, a 

 supplement bearing date 184(1. In addition to these Avorks, each 

 of the rivals j^roduced a CtdaJogne. That of Stephens Avas the 

 more complete, and contains copious, exact, synonymic references, 

 shoAving an acqi;aintance Avith the more prominent of the earlier 

 authors. The exact date of the first appearance of these Catalogues is not 

 free from doubt, but Ave may place it ap})roximately at the end of 1829, that 

 of Curtis being probably the earlier ; Stephens published a second 

 edition of his Catalogue in 1833, and Curtis folloAved suit in 1837; and 

 in the respectiA^e prefaces each maintains his right to be considered 

 the more reliable authority in a fashion that has not yet become quite 

 obsolete. A striking characteristic of each of these men, of Stephens in 

 particular, is the readiness Avith Avhich they raised to the rank of named 

 species, forms Avhich Ave noAv know to be only A'arieties. So far as 

 triA^ial nomenclature goes, there is not a gi'eat amount of difference 

 betAveen them, l)oth practically base their nomenclature on the Vienna 

 Catalogue and nii])ner. Neither had any knoAvledge of the Continental 

 collections and, as they frequently failed to identify their insects by the 

 figures or descriptions of Continental authors, it came about that ncAv 

 names Avere giA-en l)y them to many species differing from those in use 

 abroad. In 1843 Henry IJt)ulileday })aid a A'isit to Paris, made the acquain- 

 tance of Boisduval and Guenee, and found, on comparing some of our 

 insects Avith the specimens in the splendid collection of M. Pierret, that 

 species known l»y one name here, Avere called by another name there. On 



