1730 Insects. 



doubt does attach to the indigenous origin of many species contained in the older 

 cabinets ; some were probably introduced by mistake, others as representatives of rare 

 British species, and others imposed upon entomologists by unprincipled dealers. 



I have not alluded to those insects which have certainly occurred in Britain in a 

 living state, but which were undoubtedly introduced either in the egg, larva, or pupa. 

 To this class belong Sphinx Carolina, quinquemaculatus, &c. The admission of 

 these into our catalogues must always remain mere matter of opinion. 



Papiliones. In Wood's Index, eighty-two species are given as British : of these, 

 sixty-five are undoubtedly so ; of the remaining seventeen, ten are mere varieties of 

 other species, and seven doubtful natives. The names of five continental species are 

 erroneously applied to varieties of British ones. 



Sphingides. Thirty-six species are enumerated, of which three are doubtful. 



Bombyces. One hundred and nine species are given as British: of these fifteen ap- 

 pear to be mere varieties, and five or six to be doubtful natives. 



Noctuce. Three hundred and thirty-nine species are enumerated : about sixty of 

 these are mere varieties, and from twenty to twenty-five probably foreigners ; about 

 thirty names of genuine continental species are erroneously applied. 



Geometrce. Three hundred and one species are figured ; of which, fifty or more are 

 either varieties or doubtful natives. 



Tortrices. Three hundred and twenty species are given as British : of these, up- 

 wards of a hundred are mere varieties, and five or six are not British. 



I think I have now proved that a necessity really did exist for examining our 

 catalogues; and I now take leave of the subject, hoping one day to see a Catalogue 

 of British Insects a little more correct than any yet published. — Henry Doubleday ; 

 Epping, April 6th, 1847. 



Reasons for Expunging Melitcea Dia and Erebia Melampus from a Catalogue of 

 British Lepidoptera. — As Mr. Weaver has found fault (Zool. 1657) with us for 

 " expunging " Melita?a Dia and Erebia Melampus from our Catalogue of British Le- 

 pidoptera, I think it necessary to explain briefly why the catalogue was originally 

 printed, and also our motives for leaving out the butterflies in question. The first 

 edition was printed by private subscription, not with the view of being sent into the 

 world as an authority, either as to the value of species or as to nomenclature, but 

 simply as a matter of convenience to the subscribers. Its extreme usefulness, for the 

 purpose of transmitting marked lists of desiderata, duplicates, &c, through the medium 

 of the post-office, soon became apparent, and as such a number of copies only had 

 been printed as would supply the original subscribers, we were requested to issue a 

 second edition, which we did ; this time at our own risk. Although, as I have before 

 stated, the catalogue was never meant to be considered any authority, we wished to 

 make this edition as perfect as possible ; and being at the time in correspondence with 

 Mr. Doubleday, I marked all the names in the first-published list that I thought 

 doubtful, and requested his opinion as to which should go out ; he kindly gave his 

 opinion, and Dia, Melampus, &c. were accordingly " expunged." I may mention that 

 previously Mr. Doubleday had frequently communicated to me errors of nomenclature, 

 &c, that he had detected, but of course to have made use of information so kindly 

 given, when I knew him at the same time to be preparing a catalogue, would have 

 been unhandsome in the extreme ; consequently the names in common use were left 

 undisturbed. As to the Loch Itannoch butterfly, there is now no doubt it is not the 

 Melampus of Boisduval, and, as it is thought to be only a local variety of Cassiope, it 



