bisects. 3161 



Occurrence of Lobophora polycommaria near Keswick. — In the month of April, I 

 was agreeably surprised at meeting with Lobophora polycommaria in plenty, during 

 my rambles through the woods bordering on the sunny banks of our lake. This insect 

 I believe has been rarely met with by collectors. I had taken a few in the same loca- 

 lity in preceding years, and on their appearance this season devoted more of my time 

 and attention to their capture than in former years; success rewarded my pursuits, 

 for in about a fortnight, in company with my brother-collector, Mr. William Gleenip, 

 of this place, we found we had taken an unusual number. The mode of capture was 

 by means of a lantern ; the time between the hours of 8 and 12, P.M. We also met 

 with them during the day, when leisure permitted us to look for them. They were 

 found chiefly on the trunks of trees, free from moss or cobwebs, and when found upon 

 bushes seemed carefully to avoid the leaves. I find they are not often met with on the 

 wing; the only time I have seen them flying is about an hour after sunset. I am con- 

 vinced that if when they are met with they were well looked after, we should no longer 

 have to reckon them among the rare (however local) Lepidoptera of our island. I 

 should feel pleasure in sending, as far as my duplicates will go, to any collector who 

 may not have met with the insect. — John Harrison, jun.; near the George Hotel, Kes- 

 wick, Cumberland, May 19, 1851. 



Generic Names in the Museum Catalogue. — The employment of harsh terms nei- 

 ther disproves nor confirms facts ; and to make extracts from an author, — irrespective 

 of the context, — for the purpose of illustrating a theory, is, to use the mildest expres- 

 sion, very unfair. The perusal of the article on the Museum Catalogue of Lepidop- 

 tera, (Zool. 3098), compels me, most painfully, to make the above reflection upon the 

 extracts there given from M. Guenee's letters ; and I feel called upon to add a few re- 

 marks in vindication of the propriety of inserting the objected references to the " detes- 

 table " and " senseless " * Verzeiclmiss ' of Hubner. Before I proceed, however, I 

 would ask, as doubtless many of your readers would like to know, at what period a work 

 becomes "out of date" ? In my folly I had assumed, on a question of nomenclature, 

 that the oldest name took precedence ; I have now, alas ! to learn, after more than for- 

 ty years' experience, that has nothing to do with the question, as the work in which it 

 is proposed may become " out of date" !!!* The edition of Linnaeus in which the 

 amended system of nomenclature was first introduced, appeared in 1758 ; the Vienna 

 Catalogue (W. V.), a mere Catalogue, — with a few almost unintelligible appellate de- 

 scriptions interspersed, and allied species occasionally placed widely apart,— in 1775 ; 

 and yet these are not considered " out of date," while we are authoritatively told by 

 M. Guenee, that Hiibner's ' Verzeichniss,' of 1816, is so !! The real secret is, that 

 notwithstanding the defective classification of its contents, Hubner has pointed out 

 some admitted genera, and applied names thereto, which have been subsequently de- 

 tected and named by his successors, — in pure ignorance, doubtless, of his labours, — and 

 which it is not convenient now to adopt. That I consider his arrangement defective, 

 a glance at almost any page of my recent Catalogue will prove: but it must be admit- 

 ted that is no reason why the good should not be employed and the bad rejected, as I 

 have endeavoured to do ; not by following the ' Verzeichniss,' but by examining the 



* I presume this to be the reason why the French Lepidopterisls almost universally 

 omit references to Haworth (1803—10), and Leach (1815), their works being "out of 

 date." 



IX. 2 B 



