8 [Jun», 



insect, on close inspection, is seen to be a symmetrically rubbed ex- 

 ample of Nannodia nceviferella, the British form of Hiibner's stipella. 

 Haworth's description of the white along the inner margin is, of 

 course, misleading, and refers only to this particular rubbed specimen, 

 which was taken at Coombe Wood, and was considered unique. 

 I see that Mr. Stainton, in the Insecta Britannica, p. 136, does quote 

 KnocJcella, Haw., but with a query, as a synonym of nceviferella. I 

 do not think it admits of a doubt. While, therefore, Hiibner's name, 

 stipella, will stand for the stem form, Knockella, Haw., will have to 

 supersede nceviferella, Dup., for the variety. 



One more remark, and I have done. It is generally considered 

 that Haworth's latifasciana is a variety of Schalleriana, but in this 

 type collection an example occurs placed along with five other varieties 

 of Abilgaardana = variegana, which is a much more likely position for 

 it, if it be a variety at all, than the neighbourhood of Schalleriana. 

 I think it will probably turn out to be a distinct species, attached to 

 hornbeam. 



London : May, 1888. 



[I fear I cannot follow Mr. Warren in accepting his corrections 

 of nomenclature for Gelechia humeralis and G. nceviferella. 



With regard to the former, Haworth's description with the best 

 intentions will not apply, because, by a misprint (or, perhaps, from a 

 blunder in the manuscript), " niveis" occurs instead of " nigris." 

 Mr. Warren proposes to correct this by substituting black for white, 

 and then claims priority, as if he had done so in 1812. 



It is possible that Haworth's type may throw a light on what 

 Haworth intended, but it fails to alter the fact what Haworth did. If 

 we have the power to adjust old descriptions to make them fit old 

 types, we lose all fixity of our ideas. 



" Captain Cuttle's " watch was a very good one, if you only put 

 it forward half an hour every morning and a quarter of an hour every 

 afternoon, but one would rather not have such a watch in real life. 



With reference to Gelechia nceviferella, a description which will 

 only apply to symmetrically rubbed specimens. fails to answer my idea 

 of a good description, and I could not advise any one to upset a well 

 known name, by reviving one, ignored till now, and only rendered 

 intelligible by the careful study of the symmetrically rubbed specimen 

 from which it was made. 



As to Mr. Warren's corrections of synonymy amongst the. Tor- 

 trices I say nothing, as they are not in my province. — H. T. Stainton, 

 May 12th, 1888.] 



