THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



always to be insisted on, for it was agreed that when the sexes of a species had 

 been separately described, the name of the male should be adopted. This has 

 been very generally adhered to, but Mr. Kirby is not always guided by it. 

 It is well known that the sexes of the common Meadow Brown were described 

 by Linnaeus as distinct species, and in his work on the Swedish Fauna the 

 female is numbered 1052 and called Jurtina, while the male is 1053 Janira. 

 Apart from the rule giving precedence to the name of the male, it is surely 

 going too far to propose to alter a well established name like Janira, for that of 

 opposite sex, merely because it stands above it in the arrangement, both being 

 even on the same page. If the law of priority is to lead to such as this, it is 

 time to abandon it. 



Another fertile source of error is the practice some authors have, of giving 

 what is known as a manuscript name, as being of equal authority to one pub- 

 lished with a description. There is so very much copying from one to another 

 without any attempt to verify the extracts, that after such a name has passed 

 through a few works it is most difficult to trace it to its source. In Dr. 

 Stau dinger's catalogue of the Pyralidina you will find 

 "No. 699, Cinerosella, Zeller. 



Artemisiella, Stainton's Manual, Yol. 2, p. 173/' 

 Now, Stainton's Manual does not profess to give descriptions of new species, 

 it is clear therefore the reference to this work is an error. In Doubleday's 

 list the name stands 



" Artemhiella, Stephens." 

 A reference- to the work of Stephens makes matters no clearer, for the 

 insect was not known when it was published. When I was working at 

 the synonymy of this group for the second part of my list I was greatly 

 bewildered over this, and for a long time could get no light. At last I wrote 

 Mr. Stainton and he was able to clear it up. Staudinger's reference of course 

 was a mistake, and in my opinion the reference to Stephens was equally wrong. 

 The facts are these. Stephens appear to have been the first' to have the insect 

 in this country, and believed it to have been undescribed. In communicating 

 it to Mr. Stainton he suggested the name Artemisiella as an appropriate one. 

 Mr° Stainton described the insect in the " Transactions of the Entomological 

 Society," and in doing so, being desirous to recognize his friend's claims, he 

 called it 



" Myelois Artemisiella, Steph., MSS." 

 Mr. Stephens prepared a catalogue of the Crambidse and Knothorns for the 

 British Museum, and the species stands as " Myelois Artemisiella, S teph., 

 MSS., Stainton, Proc. Ent:- Soc, 1850, p. 6, and Cat. Tin. Sup. 2, 1851." 

 A full reference like this 'is intelligible enough even with an authority in 



