Insects. 5435 



cases I saw, where the insects, not fly-blown, had died without changing, and the 

 larger portion of those then noticed which had changed (they likewise being much 

 discoloured) were probably diseased, the effect perhaps of the heavy showers. In 

 addition to the species already mentioned I observed, in the autumn of last year, 

 several varieties of "looper" caterpillars, and a very few, perhaps two or three, larger 

 larvae, possibly immature cockchaffer grubs, all evidently retiring from the same spot 

 where others of their race had been so actively employed. From the preceding 

 account it may be anticipated that, during the summer of the present year, white 

 butterflies, and consequently their progeny, did not appear in unusual multitudes 

 where previously they had proved such a pest. It must, however, be added, that the 

 occupants of two adjoining gardens, warned by the total loss of their crops in 1854 

 and 1855, varied their system of cultivation in 1856, and the contiguous field did not 

 of course contain rape again this year. — Arthur Hussey ; Rottingdean, December 3, 

 1856. 



Mr. Staintoris Nomenclature in the ' Manual.' — In p. 171 of the 'Manual of 

 British Butterflies and Moths,' Mr. Stainton informed us that, in his arrangement of 

 the Noctuina, he intended to adopt that of M. Guenee, in his great work on the 

 Noctuelites of the whole world. Now I, in common with, I believe, most British 

 entomologists, look up to Mr. H. Doubleday as our Mentor, and as I happen to know 

 that it is the opinion of Mr. Doubleday that all other nomenclatures must bow before 

 that of M. Guenee, it was with no small delight that I hailed Mr. Stainton's 

 announcement. " At last," said I to myself, " thete is a chance of our having a 

 nomenclature, in which most, if not all, entomologists will coincide. At last we have 

 got hold of a thread which will lead us out of that seemingly inextricable labyrinth in 

 which, as regards the nomenclature of our British Lepidoptera, we have been so long 

 involved." Judge, then of my surprise and annoyance when, upon comparing the 

 'Manual' with M. Guenee's admirable work, I found that in no less than seven 

 instances Mr. Stainton has already, in direct defiance of his preliminary announce- 

 ment, departed from the nomenclature of M. Guenee: — 



t. Acronycta Salicis, Curt., appears as a distinct species, though M. Guenee 

 expressly states that, in his opinion, it is a variety of A. Menyanthidis, Esp. 



2. Nonagria paludicola, Hub., of Guenee appears as N. geminipuncta, Haw. 



3. Nonagria lutosa, Hub., of Guenee, appears as N. crassicornis, Haw. 



4. Hydraecia Petasitis, Doub , retains its old name, though M. Guenee distinctly 

 declares it to be only a variety of H. vindelicia, Fret/. 



5. Miana erratricula, Hub., of Guenee, appears as M. literosa, Haw. 



6. Pachnobia carnica, Heer., of Guenee, appears as P. alpina, of anybody you 

 like. 



7. Xanthia silago, Hub., is styled X. flavago, Fab., apparently for no reason 

 whatever, except that it may now and then personate Gortyna flavago, W. V. 



Now I have always supposed that when a person adopts a thing, be does so for better 

 or worse, and it seems to me that Mr. Stainton, after distinctly announcing his inten- 

 tion of adopting M. Guenee's arrangement of the Noctuina, is bound to take it exactly 

 as it stands, and is wholly unjustified in introducing emendations of his own. Surely 

 the world-wide reputation and vast experience of M. Guenee, backed as it is by so 

 incontrovertible an authority as Mr. Doubleday, ought to be sufficient to prevent 



