O04 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on 
The name “ Pseudo-Bombyces” was, it appears, first 
used by Haworth, who in his “ Lepidoptera Britannica,” 
thus designates a variety of Noctuce having pectinate an- 
tenne. ‘The species classed together by Haworth under 
this name are mostly now included in our genus Agrotis. 
Next, Latreille in the “ Regne Animal” uses the same 
name, as we have found, for one of his sections of the 
Nocturna, there grouping under that name the Arctiidae, 
Notodontide, and Lithoside. Thus the name Pseudo- 
Bombyces has already a historic meaning. If Haworth’s 
name passed for nothing, Latreille’s classification at least 
was the work of a great systematist; and surely the 
name which he gave to a certain group of genera cannot 
be now applied with propriety to another. If sucha 
practice were generally allowed, endless confusion would 
be caused. ‘Timid writers would take care to get favour 
for new arrangements by using old names; and we 
should soon have the Pseudo-Bombyces of Haworth, of 
Latreille, of Guenée, and of this, that, and the other 
writer, all meaning different thmgs. A confusion of 
this kind is very easily guarded against. A general law, 
that no group distinguished by characters different from 
those of the original group, shall bear the name of the 
original group, meets the difficulty—and, perhaps, only 
expresses what has been the practice of accurate authors. 
Stephens, in his “ Illustrations,” unites all the so-called 
Pseudo-Bombyces into one family, which he names Noto- 
dontide ; and Stainton, in his Manual, describes them 
species for species, under the same name. On this 
ground the name Pseudo-Bombyces cannot, I assume, be 
upheld. 
But the reason which at once disestablishes the name 
Pseudo-Bombyces for this so-called group is founded on 
its own illogical position. The authors Haworth and 
Latreille each recognized a group Bombyces, and there- 
fore for them to call another group Pseudo-Bombyces was 
not improper or ridiculous. ‘To ignore the existence of 
the Bombyces as a natural group, and yet to exalt into a 
natural group genera, whose common characteristic is a 
certain definite unlikeness to the Bombyces, is a per- 
formance in all respects worthy of a writer who, without 
giving any reasons, interferes with the work of other 
men. ‘The blunder is of the same character as would be 
a proposal to tax, according to its wheat produce, a 
