Insects. 3163 



too, that in the above paper, there is only one reference to Haworth's Lep. Brit, al- 

 though many species are therein well described for the first time ; and that the genera 

 proposed by Curtis and myself in our respective Catalogues &c, are taken as it were 

 by chance, sometimes he and sometimes I being considered as the author-.* and, 

 moreover, in this said paper, intended to reconcile this "Babel Microlepidopterologie," 

 and to give the correct nomenclature, divers names are changed in order to correspond 

 with the ridiculously absurd mononymic system, introduced by the French, in defiance 

 of the otherwise universally adopted rules of zoological nomenclature, and thus creat- 

 ing instead of abolishing confusion. That I have occasionally infringed these rules is 

 undeniable, more particularly among the Pyralidse, as pointed out by my friend Dou- 

 bleday. In my ; Systematic Catalogue,' ii. 164, published in 1829, it will be observed 

 that P. forficalis is separated as an unnamed genus, and that other species are simi- 

 larly treated. About four years subsequently to the appearance of that work, while 

 engaged upon the family in question, I first heard of the ' Verzeichniss,' which was 

 kindly lent to me for two days only, when I contrived with great exertion to extract a 

 list of the indigenous species therefrom : finding that many of my indicated genera 

 were named in that book, I adopted them in my ' Illustrations,' and in cases where Hiib- 

 ner's coitus (or genera) were much broken up, employed his names, in accordance with 

 the then recognized practice, for the detached species, in order to obviate the necessity 

 of coining new ones, and thus arose the reference to Mesographe, and having structu- 

 rally characterized that genus in vol. iv. p, 45 of my ' Haustellata,' I retained it in the 

 * Museum Catalogue,' not " to give any idea of the original group," but as the only 

 species cannot consistently be associated with the other discordant ones mixed up in 

 the genus Pionea as catalogued by Duponchel ; the only authority we possess for the 

 employment of that name, beyond its adoption (subsequently) in Doubleday's List. 

 Having thus cursorily replied to the animadversions on the Catalogue, I, for ever, quit 

 the subject, and only regret that the pages of the ' Zoologist' should have been occu- 

 pied with its discussion, to the exclusion of more important matter. — J. F. Stephens ; 

 Eltham Cottage, Foxley Road, Kennington, May 15, 1851. 



New British Tenthredo. — I have frequently remarked upon the undue stress laid 

 by entomologists on their captures of novelties ; as an illustration, I will just mention 

 what some persons may consider a singular fact. You, Mr. Editor, requested me to 

 bring something- new to the recent meeting of the Entomological Club at your house, 

 on the 17th instant. I had been too much occupied to hunt up anything, and on the 

 afternoon of my intended visit strolled into my garden to find something wherewith to 

 gratify you, when, behold ! in less than five minutes, I was rewarded by catching a 

 Selandria, which I at once recognized as new to our lists ; and in the course of a few 

 minutes caught two others, and lost one or two. Since then, however, I have suc- 

 ceeded in securing a pair (male and female) only. The insect is Selandria sericea of 

 Hartig.— Id. May 26, 1851. 



Occurrence of the Male of Lyda inanita. — While searching the rose-bed which pro- 

 duced the above-named insects, I was additionally rewarded yesterday by detecting 

 the male of Lyda inanita, of which sex only one (in the British Museum) or two spe- 



* The type of my genus Dictyopteryx (Cat. ii. 189) he makes the type of the genus 

 Peronea, and calls it Peronea St. Curtis !! whereas not a single species of the insects 

 included in his so-called genus is to be found in my works. 



