ERRATA AND CORRIGENDA. 



V. 14. /.„. n^t. M ,th reference to the capture of Sphinx Pinastri in Ravekton Wood, near Edinburgh, positivelv 

 domed by Mr. Duncan, Mr. Stephens has been so kind as to show me the following entry by Dr. Leach in hisn.anuscrip.; 

 >^T.tten before he was appointed naturalist to the Britisl, Museum .-" In Rivelstone Wood, a n:e ipso semel lectus. Don, 

 J. Wilson, CoUegii janitor, his lexit prope Edinburgh." 1811. 

 P. 10, lino 17— /"• "lineafa" rmd " Livornica.' 



— line 2."! — " Species 5 "for " Species 1 ." 

 P. 24, line 7— /or " fire spotted " read '■ five spotted." 



P. 31.—" The two Antlirocerae (omitted in Plate 0, and represented in Plate 8), are from the collection of Mr Stephens 

 who considei-s them established as distinct British species ; he, however, differs from Dr. Becker, of AViesbadon who il 

 decidedly of opinion, from all he has seen, that we have only two species— namely, A. Filipenduls and A. Loti. ' In the 

 description of Plate (i, I mentioned my suspicion that some mistake existed witl, respect to the caterpillars of A. Filipendute 

 or A. Loti, which lias been the means of furnishing me with the following satisfactory remarks, communicated by the 

 Rev. W. T. Bree, which prove that my suspicion was not unfounded. The larva of A. Filipendulie, as figured by Hiibner 

 (my fig. 12, plate «), and described by others on his authority, being totally unlike nature— Mr. Bree says, " The cater- 

 pillars of A. Filipendulas and A. Loti are somewhat onisciform, but not so short and thick as your figure of Ino statices, yet 

 exceedingly unlike in fonu to your figure of Filipendute. The two species occur in this neighbourhood (near Coventry), but 

 in different localities, Loti being found in heathy bogs, and Filipendula? in low meadows and grassy woods ; occasionally I 

 have met with specimens of each in the locality of the other, but this was not usual, which tended to convince me, among 

 other circumstances, that they were distinct species. This view of the distinctness of even these two species does not", 

 however, seem fully bonic out by the appearance of tlie larva; ; for Mr. Bree goes on to state, ' I have often seen the cater- 

 pillars of each, and though I never compared them accurately, side by side, together, yet I can safely say that there is no 

 very obvious difference betwi-en them;' and says that the rough figures in Harris's Aurelian, and in 'Wilkes, are 

 evidently the true caterpillar, and not by any means bad representations." (H. N. H.) 



P. .50, line — Zeuzera Amndinis was taken by Mr. H. Doubleday at Whittlesea Mere, and not in Epping Forest. 

 P. 67 — ar/d " SpEoiKS 4, Notodonta tritophus. 

 " Syn.— Bo;ni,i/-r <Wto7)/(«x, Fabr. ; Esper. ; Ochsenheimer ; Godart ; Hiibner (text) ; Douglas, in Eutomol. p. .31!5. 



Bombyt torva, Hiibner, fig. 27, but not of Ochsenheimer. 

 Closely allied to Notodonta ziczac, with the fore wings clouded with brown, and with somewhat obsolete waved dusk\' 

 strigae, with a central ferruginous lunule, edged with white ; liind wings, with a stripe of brown on the anal ed^e. 

 Caterpillar " greenish-gray coloured, having three prominences on the back," very much resembling that of N. ziczae. 

 The larva taken in July, 1842, by J. W. Douglas, Esq., from an aspen tree on the coast of Essex. It formed a slight 

 covering between two leaves in the collecting-box, and apjieared in the perfect state on the 10th August. 

 P. 90, line \l—for " are" read " is." 

 P. 104, line 4— ^br "rosea" rpr/rf " miniata." 



P. 114. — The Synonymes of several of the species of the larger genera placed at the commencement of the family 

 Noctuidas, especially Agi-otis and Graphiphora, are still extremely confused. In describing these groups I received great assist- 

 ance from Messrs. H. Doubleday and Bentley, to whom our best thanks are due for their kind attentions. I need not refer to 

 any particular passages in proof of the valuable aid they have afforded to this work, because it has been my desire throughout 

 (and I believe there is not a single page which does not prove this), to render to each his due. Since the portions of the 

 work referring to these genera were published, several papers have appeared in the " Entomologist," upon the classification 

 and nomenclature of this difficult family', to which the reader is refen'ed. The task of settling the nomenclature of many 

 of these species, and of determining the strict identity of many supposed English species with those of Continental autliors, 

 has yet to be accomjilished ; but the laborious exertions of the gentlemen above named, with several others ei|ually assiduous, 

 will go far to remove many of the doubts that still remain. Greater attention ought uniiuestional)ly to be devoted to 



