" • INTRODUCTION, 



imagines resemble, one another so closely that no superficial difference 

 will help US, Professor Grote, whileacceptingthedivision, does not defend 

 it by difference of neuration, and Dr. Chapman's organic researches 

 would suggest a different subdivision if one were necessary. With 

 regard to specific names there is little to be said. I have, in accordance 

 Avith my strongly expressed views on "types," restored Alcris in place 

 of learns, regarding the latter as a variety (r. note in Im-n), but have 

 retained the use of Anjus to replace J<iion, though I am by no means 

 sure of the necessity, and (juite confident of the unwisdom, of so doing. 

 Is it not much more probable that Linn;eus regarded both as one 

 species, than that he was unacquainted with the insect to which we have 

 all, until lately, apphed his name An/us'? and in the former case is 

 there any necessity for a change of name '? With regard to varietal 

 names I have only one remark to offer. It would be such a fruitful 

 source of confusion if the same name might be applied to one species, 

 and to a variety of another in the same genus (or even the same tribe), 

 that the practice should never be tolerated, and such names as Kdxsa 

 yar. Chri/sothniu', and Kpij/hnm var. MclaiujiKs should be considered 

 inadmissible. Only four changes of any importance from the established 

 order of things, will, I think, be found, r/-. ; the treatujent of M. 

 JJerisalemis as a var. of Deioue : the merging of A(ci/<i)u' in Ilt'iniione : 

 the separation of .S. Conlula from Actira, and of A. Simjilotiia from 

 JJdia : all, whether generally accepted or not, are the result of careful 

 study and much discussion and correspondence. The last change has 

 already been made by Dr. Spuler, and is, I think, justified in loco : 

 and the second, which is a reversion to the arrangement of Esper and 

 Frey, has the sujjport, among many others, of such lepidopterists as 

 Professor IJlachier and Chanoine Favre, notwithstanding the opinion 

 held by the latter when he published his " Lepidopteres du Valais." As 

 to .1/. Bcn'saleiisis, my reasons for the change are given under Lhioiir, 

 and though I find myself in antagonism with so eminent a lepidopterist 

 as Dr. Chapman, 1 feel compelled to adhere to my view. The 

 separation of Conhtld, which has long been doubtful, is also treated 

 in locu. 



On two minor points, literary rather than scientific, 1 find myself 

 at variance with many writers with whom I should greatly prefer to 

 find myself in accord, but, in neither case, is there any uniformity of 

 practice. In the first place, it seems to me absurd to adhere to the 

 original spelling of a name when it is manifestly and admittedly in- 

 correct, and in such cases 1 have never hesitated to alter it. Why 

 retain such errors as Coridon and Megera '? Secondly, I have spelt 

 all specific names with capitals ; even at the cost of some con- 

 venience in reading, the proper names appear to me to cry aloud 

 for them, and naturally 1 should have employed them for these 

 only, but, as in all otbei- languages than our own, capitals are 

 considered incorrect for (uijn-tiri's of place (<'.//., Si)iiploiiia), a diffi- 

 culty at once arises which seems most easily solved by capitalising all. 

 I cannot, however, feel that this does away with all (or even with any) 

 objection that might be felt to a disagreement between adjectives and 

 their substantives, and that agreement I have, therefore, maintained ; 

 but as both the words " varietas " and " aberratio " are fortunately 

 feminine, 1 have used the feminine form in all cases for varieties and 

 ^aberrations. An apparent exception is (.'unjdvii ab. Cali/donttis, Lowe, 



