INTRODUCTION. 



widely-distributed form of each species as the type, it would be much 

 preferable to the arbitrary arrangement we are obliged to adopt, but 

 our knowledge in this direction is at present infinitesimal and our 

 ignorance profound, and however satisfactory it would be to be able 

 to use the term " type " as I have here pointed out, it is at present 

 impossible. 



I would only offer one gentle criticism concerning the use of 

 descriptions and figures as types. Guenee and other authors have 

 used as types the figures of authors not only without descriptions, but 

 without names. The use of figures without descriptions but with 

 names is perfectly legitimate and proper, and I consider a good figure 

 with a name as valuable and useful (frequently more useful) for a 

 reference, as the best description, but a figure without a name is 

 useless, and it is ridiculous to refer a later author's name to the figure 

 of an earlier author and look on the earlier author as the nomenclator 

 of the species and delineator of the type. To illustrate my objection. 

 Albin figured a moth without a name. Many years after it was figured 

 by Hiibner under the name of impura and yet Guenee refers to the 

 species as impura, Albin. Albin never dreamed of the insect as 

 impnra, and it appears unscientific to attempt to tack his name on to 

 the species as the nomenclator of the type. For myself, T have 

 accepted the oldest recognisable named figure or description as the 

 type. 



Still another point relating to type descriptions. Hufnagel's, 

 accepted by Staudinger, are wretched : and alone, should as a rule, 

 and certainly would be rejected. But there is another side to the 

 question. Contemporary (or almost so) with Hufnagel was Eottemburg, 

 who knew Hufnagel's spocies (probably saw his types) and who re- 

 described or extended Hufnagel's descriptions in an excellent manner, 

 at the same time retaining Hufnagel's names. These latter, through 

 Kottemburg's references, therefore, become quite intelligible, and I 

 support Staudinger in retaining Hufnagel's names and utilising his 

 descriptions for the types. 



3. THE NOCTU^E IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM COLLECTION. Relating 

 to this special group which we are now considering, I would refer to 

 the National Collection in the British Museum, and also to a series of 

 papers published by Mr. Butler, in the * Trans. Ent. Soc. of London,' 

 entitled " Notes on the synonymy of the Noctuites," which are based 

 on the material in that collection. In accepting some of the references 

 made in these papers without verification, I am afraid I led my readers 

 into error in one or two instances in the Ayrotidce, but the errors have 

 since been pointed out. 



The necessity of seeing the type specimens of some species for the 

 purpose of this work, led me to the British Museum to examine 

 them, and at the same time to look over the collection. I was ex- 

 tremely sorry to find that the way in which certain species have been 

 wrongly named, is a most serious matter, and presents dangers to those 

 who may have to consult the collection, so that I feel it necessary to 

 point out some of these instances. A British collector will understand 

 the seriousness of the errors, when I say that in the series of Hadena 

 (Mamestra) thalassma, there are eight specimens of thalassina, two of 

 H. adusta, and four of H. genista? ; the last specimen in the series of 

 Noctna margaritacea, is a typical specimen of N. glareosa ; the two last 



