46 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



a shepherd, was meant by Bergstrasser ? On p. 245 a var. of 

 Erehia oeme, '' psodea" Fit., is given, while Staudinger substitutes 

 spodea, there being already a psodea, Hb., var. of E. medusa. 

 Surely this is not only admissible but advantageous ? On p. 208, 

 Argynnis elisa, Godt., is given as " eliza." On what grounds ? 

 On p. 312, C. typhon var. rothliehi becomes " rothliehii" ; and, at 

 p. 233, the var. herta, Hb., of Melanargia larissa, " hertha" At 

 p, 354, ab. catena, Stgr., is given as " catcsna" ; and nostrodamus, 

 F., as " nostradamus," the latter being, if my memory serves me, 

 the correct spelling. At p. 290, mcei'a becomes "moe7'a" — on 

 what proof? and thanaos, Bdv., ^' thaunaos." Not having access 

 to the works of the earlier entomological authors, I am unable to 

 seek out the data upon which Dr. Lang relies. There are also 

 scattered throughout the work various misprints not included in 

 the errata, which, for the benefit of those who possess the volume, 

 I will indicate under correction : — P. 125, ^' Alenaclas" (Menalcas) ; 

 p. 147, " Trappe " (Trapp) ; p. 155, " Heyeres " (Hyeres) ; 

 p. 202, "freija, Thub." (Thnb.). Query, would it not be better 

 to print this na,me freiia in an English work, as is done in Deione 

 for Dejone, Aglaia for Aglaja, lolas for Jolas, &c. ? P. 245, " Puy 

 de Saucy" (Saucy); p. 262, '^livonica^'' {Uvonla); and on PL LXIII. 

 is " vsLY. pithio, Hb." (jntho, Hb.). I notice, too, that Dr. Lang 

 denies the occurrence of C. edusa and E. epipliron v. cassiope in 

 Ireland. The rarity of Dr. Birchall's List no doubt accounts for 

 these mis-statements ; but I should be interested to know whether 

 Cistus is correctly given as the food-plant of G. myrmidone. In 

 conclusion, perhaps I may be allowed to bear my testimony to 

 the admirable st3de in which the illustrations have been brought 

 out, their accuracy of tint — even in the Lyccenidce and other 

 genera difficult to produce satisfactory facsimiles of — exceeding, 

 in my opinion, any that have hitherto appeared in previous works 

 on European Entomology. In the Hesperiidce only I think some 

 characteristic markings have in some instances been omitted ; 

 and no wonder, for some of this family remain a puzzle to the 

 best Lepidopterologists. — W. F. de V. Kane ; Dec, 1884. 



Scientific Nomenclature. — Now that Mr. South has pub- 

 lished his new synonymic list of all Lepidoptera which have 

 hitherto been taken in this country, it is a good opportunity^ to 

 protest against the habit of naming new species after individuals, 

 which some entomologists have adopted. To take, as an example, 



