l893 .i THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 187 



bombyliformis, together with a species of Humble-bee which it mimics, taken in com- 

 pany over Rhododendrons in the New Forest on 21st May last. Mr. R. Adkin 

 exhibited a specimen of Sesia cynipiformis, in which the usual red colour of the band 

 of the left fore-wing and a p rtion of the costal streak was replaced by yellow ; also 

 a series of Spilosoma hibricipcda, reared from Barnsley parents, in some of which the 

 spots showed a tendency to become elongated. Mr. Oldham exhibited series of 

 Sphinx ligustri, Apamea ophiogramma, Cosmia a finis and other species, taken at 

 Woodford. — H. Williams, Hon. Secretary. 



General Notes. 



The derivation of Bellargus. — I hear that Mr. Tutt in his 

 " Record " finds fault with me for deriving bell (bellargus) from the 

 French word belle. He derives it from the Latin bellus. May I ask 

 why he derives it from bellus more than from bellaus ? As Argus was 

 the guardian cf Juno he was more likely to be warlike than beautiful. 

 If, on the other hand, he applies Argus as Geoffroy did to the spotted 

 butterflies, if he uses argus with a French and not a Latin meaning, it 

 is not unreasonable to derive bell also from a French word, (Here 

 ma} r I give Mr. Tutt the information that there is also a Latin adverb 

 belle ). Bellargus, in any case, is bad or dog-latin, therefore nonsense. 

 Bellus argus or rather Argus bellus, or Argus bellaus is good or 

 classical latin. — C. W. Dale. 



Doubleday's List, 1st Edition. — Dr. Buckell has called my 

 attention to a curious fact connected with this list. The three last 

 names on p. 15 are reproduced on p. 17, and the 72 species in the 

 third column of p. 15 and on p. 16 are also reproduced on p. 17 et seq., 

 but in a considerably modified arrangement, and with many differences 

 in the generic names. The w r ork appears to have been published in 

 sheets of 8 pages, which are marked pp. 1 to 8, a, 9 to 16, b, 17 to 24, c, 

 25, 6 and 7, d, the lettering being in the lower right hand corner of 

 the first page of the sheet. Dr. Buckell suggests as the publication 

 commenced in 1847, and the title page is dated 1850, that an interval 

 elapsed between the issue of the different sheets, and that the author 

 had seen reason to modify his views between the issue of the second 

 sheet (b) and third (c) where this repetition and alteration takes place. 

 The paper too, of a and b, differs slightly from that of c and d. The 

 title page, dated 1850, is of the same paper as c and d, and was 

 doubtless issued with the latter sheet which otherwise only contains 

 3 pages. It may be, however, that there were two issues of 

 this edition, the second differing though not called a Second 

 Edition, and that my copy contains part of each. Can any one explain ? 

 I do not remember the matter having been noticed before. — John E. 

 Robson, Hartlepool. 



