NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 131 



immediate occasion to materially alter our present nomenclature, and 

 the arrangement of our collections may quite well remain as it is. 



We hope that those of our correspondents whose letters have so 

 far not been answered in any other way will find replies to their com- 

 munications in the foregoing remarks. 



The Nomenclature of British Lepidoptera. — May I be allowed a 

 corner in the ' Entomologist ' to correct an error which has unfortu- 

 nately crept into the work of the North Loudon Natural History Society 

 on nomenclature (antea, 59-63) ? No. 43 will have to be deleted alto- 

 gether, as Mr. Kirby has made an unaccountable mistake, which we 

 were unwise enough to follow without due investigation. Aprilina, Hb., 

 is = orion, Esp., and therefore the generic name Diphihera is in nowise 

 applicable to aprilina, L. On the C. hyale question we arrived at 

 exactly the same results to which Prof. Aurivillius has since given the 

 weight of his authority (antea, p. 72) ; while as regards the genus 

 Graphiphora, Hb. (Kirby, Handb. Lep. v. p. 45), we find that its type, 

 G. nun-atrum, Hb. 112 = gothica, Hb. Verz., is the true yothica of 

 Linne, and not c-nigrum, Linn., as indicated by Mr. Kirby. If, there- 

 fore, the name Graphiphora is resuscitated, it will have to supplant 

 Tamiocampa, Gn. (vide Grote, Abh. Nat. Ver. Bremen, xiv. Heft. i. 

 p. 49.— Louis B. Prout ; 246, Richmond Road, N.E. 



In reply to Mr. Prout's objections, I have to make the following 

 observations : — 



1. I plead guilty to having overlooked the fact that aprilina, Hb., is 

 orion, auct., and consequently the latter would be the type of Diphthera. 



2. It appears to be now established that the Tentamen is well 

 before Ochsenheimer, vol. iv. I adopted O.'s use of Graphiphora, in 

 which case Hiibner's action (if later), having in view the confusion of 

 the names gothica and nun-atrum, would make the type as I indicated it ; 

 but if the Tentamen is earlier, then O.'s use of Graphiphora must be 

 ignored. 



3. I adhere to my previously expressed opinion that the original 

 hyale, Linn., is really C. edusa, auct., notwithstanding Prof. Aurivillius' 

 opinion to the contrary. It is not the only case in which I have not 

 been able to accept his conclusions respecting Linnean species. As 

 regards Linne's citations for hyale, the case is as follows : — 



Syst. Nat. (ed. x.), i. 1758. Petiver, Gaz. t. 14, f. 11 (edusa, ? ) ; 

 Roesel, iii. t. 46, f. 4, 5 (ed. $ col.); Ray, Ins. p. 112, n. 6. Ray's 

 insect is described as yellow, and the female as white, which might 

 apply to hyale, auct. ; but Petiver's figure is quoted, with the words 

 " Papilio croceus, apicibus nigricantibus." Ray appears to have de- 

 scribed hyale, auct., and quoted Petiver's figure and description of edusa, 

 auct. Uddman, p. 56 (description only). 



Eaun. Suec. ed. ii. (1761), only Petiver and Ray quoted, under 

 hyale, Uddman's description being referred to palarno : but Edw. Aves, 

 t. 304, f. 1, 2, is quoted by error. 



Syst. Nat. (ed. xii.), i. (2), 1767. Here the references given are to 

 Scopoli, Petiver, Ray, Schaeffer, Geoffroy, Edwards, and Roesel. 



Edwards' figure is quoted in error ; it belongs to Callidryas eubule, 

 and is correctly referred to lower down on the same page ; and this 

 insect is called " luteis," though it does not differ in colour from other 



