THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE " BEE HAWK-MOTHS.'* 41 



the manner of employment of the names in our standard refer- 

 ence list (* The Entomologist Synonymic List') is not understood 

 by all working entomologists. Unfortunately the change from 

 the Doubleday nomenclature has not been noted in the published 

 list of alterations. I therefore venture to submit the following 

 summary for the assistance of readers of the * Entomologist ' : — 



Fuciformis, Linn, (teste Ochs.) = fuciformis. South's List = 

 homhyliformis. Auct. Brit. = the "narrow-bordered," or scabious 

 species. 



Bombyliformis, Ochs. = homhyliformis, South's List = faci- 

 formis. Auct. Brit. == the ** broad-bordered," or honeysuckle 

 species. 



Zeller, in discussing this complication (Stett. Ent. Zeit., 1869, 

 p. 387), suggested that the only solution of the difficulty would 

 be to abandon the old names, and call the two species, for 

 example, scahiosce and lonicerce. But it appears to me that 

 enough would be done, without doing violence to the recognized 

 laws of nomenclature, if any one had the pluck to alter one of 

 the names, thus : — 



If fuciformis, L., be, as Zeller unhesitatingly affirms, the 

 scabious species, that name stands, as in South's list. 



But homhyliformis, Linn., is now universally rejected as 

 doubtful. Therefore we have only to apply the very sensible 

 rule, advocated by Mr. Kirby and other leading synonymists, 

 that a rejected name is not again available in the same genus, 

 and to rename the honeysuckle species, instead of calling it 

 " homhyliformis, Ochs." And there could be no confusion 

 between the two species ^^ fuciformis " and " lonicerce," however 

 unfamiliar the application of the former name to the scabious 

 species might appear. 



That we are dealing with a really practical question, and not 

 only with one of intricate synonymy, was brought home to me by 

 the two facts to which I referred at the commencement of this 

 note. As a faunistic note, Mr. Ehoades Smith's record of fuci- 

 formis for Middlesex (Entom. xxviii. 233) is rendered unintelligible 

 by the said confusion. I have it, on the authority of Mr. Percy 

 Smith, that the insect in question was the narrow -horder, its 

 captor basing his nomenclature on Kirby's * European Butterflies 

 and Moths.' And from a collector's point of view it is provoking 

 to meet with the experience that befel one of my friends, who 

 received from a well-known entomologist specimens of the 

 hroad-horder (which he did not want), having had them offered 

 to him by the correct name of homhyliformis, but having construed 

 that into an offer of the narrow -horder, according to the usage of 

 the older British authors. 



12, Greenwood Koad, Dalston, N.E., Jan. 3rd, 1896. 



ENTOM. — FEB. 1896. E 



