148 



[Novem her. 



L. lurideola (complanvla) , common; A. interjectaria, not rare ; A. inornata, I 

 have taken four; E. consignoia, one; E. linaHata, two; E. dondoncBata, three or 

 four ; S. vetulata, two ; X. suhlustris, one ; N. saponaricB, two ; C. morplieus, com- 

 mon ; C. alsines, attracted to light in three localities — in one plentiful ; A. aquilina, 

 common at flowers, especially Ccntrantlius macrosiphon ; A. porpTiyreo, one at light ; 

 E.fulvago, one; C. pyralina, one at light; P. ccespitalis, one. — J.E.Fletcher, 

 "Worcester, \2th August, 1868. 



Abuses in nomendaiure.—l write to call the attention of the readers of the 

 Entomologist's IVIonthly Magazine to abuses of nomenclature, which are growing to 

 such magnitude among both British and foreign Entomologists as to threaten soon 

 to become of very serious inconvenience. I do not intend to quote many instances, 

 but I hope this protest may not be altogether useless. 



In the first place it is very common, when a name is required for a new species 

 or genus, to combine it out of that of an old one. Thus we have for prefixes, in 

 both species and genera. Hypo-, Pseudo-, Anti-, Epi-, Neo-, Hetero-, and many 

 others ; and for afiixes, -oides, -ides, -ina, -ideus, -ella, -ilia, &c. I will give just 

 one instance of the absurdity of this practice. In my Manual of European Butter- 

 flies, I adopted the MS. name of Hypoxanthe for a new Chrysophanus. The true 

 Xaoithe, by the revolutions of synonymy, had already changed its name, so that tho 

 new species had worse than a nonsense-name ; it had a name that tended, if any- 

 thing, to perpetuate error and confusion. 



Another practice existing alongside with the other, and, if possible, likely to 

 become moi'e serious, is that of using the name of a genus as the specific name of 

 a new species in another genus (often the next) which has some superficial re- 

 semblance to it. This custom, which is, I believe, much more prevalent abroad 

 than at home, is most objectionable, for it is highly probable that iu some instances 

 at least, the supposed superficial resemblance may prove real, and the species may 

 find itself in the genus whose name it already bears, necessitating that greatest of 

 evils in nomenclature, a change of the name of a species. 



Again, I wish to ask, is it allowable, when a careless author has founded 

 innumerable bad genera which have been ignored by common consent for fifty 

 years, to upset well-established genera combining several of his, to restore liis 

 obsolete names, merely because one of his types happens to fall into some good 

 modem genus ? I shall be glad to have the opinions of others on these points.— 

 W. F. KiRBY, Dublin, August 25th. 



Note having reference to hereditary variation. — Our fi-iend Mr. Harrison sent mo, 

 last year, some eggs of a hetularia that had " selected " a black partner, and this 

 spring I bred from them two black females and one black male, and five others 

 very darkly mottled. — H. D'Orville, Alphiugton, near Exeter. 



Note on variation in Amphydasis hetularia. — My friend, tho late George Gibson, 

 received from Mr. Harrison of Manchester, through Dr. Knaggs, some eggs of A. 

 hetularia which were intended to produce an intermediate variety in the imago. 

 He fed the larvse, I think, on birch, and at his death the pupee were handed over to 



