THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



213 



mended. He quotes it as " Hiibner-Geyer," at anyrate a very understandable 

 arrangement. But Geyer and Treitschke worked on identical lines, and 

 Duponchel followed the latter, as far as specific nomenclature was concerned, 

 as did Herrich-Schaffer to a great extent later. Guenee had the figures of 

 these authors before bim, and his statement that " Uneola, H." does not 

 seem to constitute a distinct variety," when Uneola is now well known 

 to be a common form of rufa does not say a great deal for the " ? " 

 he thought fit to add to Haworth's rufa. Against these names we can put 

 Haworth, Stephens, Wood, Humphrey and Westwood, in fact all British 

 authors except Doubleday. Then again, Newman, in his " British Moths/' 

 uses rufa ; and, whilst seconding everything that Mr. Robson can say in 

 praise of " Stainton's Manual/' I doubt whether it is so widely used among 

 beginners as Newman's " British Moths." 



The last sentence of Mr. Robson's is hardly fair. If I have proved my 

 point so well as to make it worth an editorial of several lines in explanation, 

 i it is hardly right to say that " Haworth possibly meant" this species. If 

 there is still a doubt in Mr. Robson's mind, there was no need of him to 

 "plead guilty to using " the — the "? " was his own if he doubted it. 

 Will Mr. Robson read my first paragraph, and tell me candidly that the 

 description does not mean rufa. If it does the word " possibly " is super- 

 fluous. Into the "entomological gain" I shall not enter, but there is such 

 ' a thing as the " law of priority " which is admitted by everybody to be in 

 operation as to names given in A.D. 1803. The thing is therefore right or 

 wrong, and does not want much argument. If Haworth's description 

 applies to our rufa, there is no doubt that rufa is the correct name, and that 

 despecta is incorrect, even if backed up by all the lepidopterists in creation. 

 RayUigh Villa, Westcombe Park, S.E. 



[Mr. Tutt and I have agreed that these discussions shall not be continued, and 

 we hope we have found a more profitable mode of settling our differences, of which 

 more will be said ere long. It would, however, be unfair that Mr. Tutt's reply 

 should be suppressed, it is therefore published now. My own opinion as to rufa 

 may be gathered from the fact that when I proposed to re-print Doubleday's Cata- 

 logue I gave precedence to Haworth's name. The last Catalogue was a different 

 matter, and I am still of opinion that precedence was rightly given there to despecta, 

 as the name in ordinary use. I expect Mr. Tutt will be satisfied with this, and 

 that the matter may drop for the present, though I still hold that the Law of 

 Priority should only apply in cases of doubt or dispute. — J. E.R.J 



