BIBLIOGRAPHY. l8l 



logical iiteiature between the early years of the Century, when 

 Havvorth's book was written (though part of it was not pub- 

 lished till much later), and the modern period, commencing with 

 Stephens and Curtis. 



Haworth's is the first attempt at a systematic work on 

 the whole of the British Lepidoptcra ; but though he instituted 

 several new genera, the Linnean and Fabrician classification 

 was still, in the main, retained. He also endeavoured to extend 

 Linnaeus' system of uniform terminations by making the specific 

 names of the Bojiibyces end in "-us." As there was practi- 

 cally little or no communication with Entomologists abroad in 

 his time, and as British Ltpidoptera are liable to so much 

 insular variation that Guenee has called Britain " Le pays 

 des varietes," it is not surprising that a comparatively large 

 number of insects were described by Haworth as new which 

 have since been regarded as mere varieties. 



B. — Works on British Lepidopiera subsequent to ILuvorih, 



Stephens's " Illustrations of British Entomology : Haustel- 

 lata " (4 vols. 1827-1835) still remains one of the best 

 systematic works on our Lepidoptcra which we possess. Many 

 of the species included in the earlier works on Entomology, 

 including that of Stephens, are now excluded from our lists. 

 These fall under several categories : — 



(^.) Species indicated as British from mere ignorance and 

 carelessness. Thus Turton, in his English edition of Linn^-eus' 

 " Systema Naturce " ("A General System of Nature," 1806) 

 appears to have marked insects as British almost at random ; 

 but then Turton was not an Entomologist but a Conchulogist. 



{b) Species accidentally introduced, including many exotic 

 insects, chiefly North American, which have been taken in 

 England from time to time. Naturally, the older Entomo- 



