Insects. 3737 



Haworth having both proposed that name for two species of Argyri- 

 dia in 1812, and the former having figured a second species (the indi- 

 genous one) subsequently under the name dipoltella, I adopted this 

 last as the most proper course to pursue. 



A graver accusation is brought forward in regard to the generic 

 names, namely, that I have referred to pretended* duplicate generic 

 names, and that " only four are really " duplicates. I beg therefore 

 to draw attention to the list above given, wherein it will be found that 

 five are literally identical, and a sixth (marked *) is etymologically 

 so, though incorrectly spelt by Guenee ; Serville having given the 

 correct orthography, and employed the name as referred to in the 

 c Catalogue.' If " Baridia and Barydius cannot be considered identi- 

 cal," surely Aporophyla (uncertain Tribe) and Aporophila (uncertain 

 Love) cannot be ; consequently the Aporophila australis of Double- 

 day's 'List,' p. 13 and 27, thrice repeated, is not identical with Apo- 

 rophyla australis — neither can Cirraedia or Cirredia be identical with 

 Cirrcedia, the correct name, &c. &c. These examples — of pure typo- 

 graphical errors — render manifest the difficulty that exists in detect- 

 ing all such errors, especially when is is stated that those above refer- 

 red to are in large capitals, and several of the names have been three 

 or four times recomposed : notwithstanding which, a charge has been 

 made against me, in reference to my remarks in my second ' Cata- 

 logue,' that my first was full of errors, and such as the following are 

 pointed out in corroboration thereof: — 



Page 7. Pyronia, Hub. V. 55, instead of 58. 

 „ 92. Septis, Hub. V. 167, „ 243. 



„ 120. Polyphora, Hub. V. 273, „ 237. 



Page 231. Pechipogon, Hub. V. 344, instead of Pechipogo, &c. 



Some of the errors alluded to not existing in the original MSS. from 

 which the work was printed, now in my possession. 



Furthermore, it is alleged that as-I have in a great measure adopted 

 Guenee's arrangement of the Tortricidae, and availed myself of the 

 'Synonymic List,' I had but little comparative trouble in working up 

 the second ' Catalogue.' To the first point I reply by stating that I 

 have in my library a printed Catalogue, dated the 7th of July, 1820 



* The employment of this objectionable word has induced me to carefully collate 

 the genera, and I find there are 65 duplicates — only 20 per cent. — of which no less 

 than 45 are employed in Entomology ; 34 are literal duplicates, and the majority of 

 the remainder differ only in gender : and in addition there is the obviously inadmissi- 

 ble word " Homoptera " applied to a genus ! 



XI. V 



