THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



279 



MR. SOUTH'S LIST 



The New List and " Newman's" 

 Moths. 



In supplying (to a certain extent) one 

 want by the production of a new syno- 

 nymic list, the proprietors of the Entomolo- 

 gist have created another, or, rather, made 

 it more than ever felt, i e., the want of a new 

 work on British moths. 



It is very easy to decree that only the 

 new nomenclature shall be used, but quite 

 another matter to ensure its being carried 

 out ; and so long as Newman's is practically 

 the only standard work on Eritish moths, 

 so long will the Doubleday nomenclature 

 be more or less used. Beginners do not 

 name their insects by lists, but by descrip- 

 tions and figures ; and as Newman's is the 

 work most used for this purpose, his names 

 are of necessity most in vogue, and will 

 continue to be until we have a new edition 

 of that book, or, better still, a new work 

 altogether. Will no one do for British 

 moths what Mr. Lang has so ably done for 

 European butterflies ? Now is the time for 

 the Entomological Society to come forward 

 and do a really good turn to British ento- 

 mology. What is wanted is a book of the 

 same description as Mr. Lang's — a better 

 model could hardly be taken — one that not 

 only describes and figures types, but all 

 named varieties, on which subject Newman 

 is severely silent, although a great many 

 were mentioned by Doubleday in his list. 

 Take Vaeoinii and Spadicea for example. 

 Doubleday gives var. polita of the former 

 and subnigra of the latter ; yet Newman 

 describes the types only, not even mention- 

 ing the common variety of Spadicea which 

 has a row of pale spots along the hind mar- 

 gin, and which may be subnigra for all one 

 can discover to the contrary. Mr. Robson's 

 list describing the named varieties will be 

 most useful when completed. 



But to describe half the shortcomings of 

 "Newman's Moths" would take too long. 

 It was a most excellent work, but now is 

 out of date altogether. 



Now a work such as that suggested on 

 British moths would settle to a great extent 

 which system of arrangement and nomen- 

 clature is to be used for some time to come, 

 for whichever it used would be followed by 

 a great many, whether Staudinger's, South's 

 or Doubleday's. The latter is hardly likely 

 to be again revived in its entirety, and, to 

 my mind, Staudinger's will probably super- 

 sede South's. — K.M.H. 



On the Arrangements of the British 

 Lepidoptera, &c. 



I have been much interested in reading 

 your review of the Entomologist Synonymic 

 List of British Lepidoptera, so hope you 

 will publish my idea of the order in which 

 they should follow. 



Sphinges. 



Bombyces (including the Drepanulidas 

 and Pseudo-Bombyces, as in Stainton's list ; 

 and the Nolidae as in Doubleday's ; and 

 also the Nycteolidae, with the exception of 

 Sarrothripus undulana, which would be 

 better placed in the Tortrices, close to its 

 old relatives Leptogramma and Peronea.) 



Nocture (including and commencing with 

 the Cymatophoridse, but exclusive of Bole- 

 tobia fuliginaria, which appears to become 

 naturally amongst the Geometrse.) 



Geometry. 



Pryales (including the Deltoides, Aventia 

 fiexula, and the Crambi.) 

 Tortrices. 



TiNEiE (concluding as in Curtis' Guide, 

 with the Gracillaridas.) 

 Pterophori. 



C. W. Dale, Glanvilles Wootton, Sher- 

 burn, Dorset. 



