ii8 



BOOK NOTICES. 



families Herfumiida: and Hypenidce are now classed among the Noctuas, the 

 Psychidce among the Tineae, and the Bombyces are increased by the inclusion at 

 their head of Sarrothripa, Earias, Hylophila, and the Nolida^ and at their foot 

 of Cymatopho7'a and Thyatira, which latter seem to be the natural links 

 by which the Bombyces pass into the Noctuse. The Pterophori are now split up 

 into numerous genera, in place of the very few to which we have hitherto been 

 accustomed. The list of Noctuse appears to have been carelessly done. Why 

 should two genera bear the same name? Calauiia and Aporophyla are each used 

 twice. In the Leucaniidce we find Calamia phragmitidis followed by five other 

 genera, and then comes Calamia lutosa. Again, in the Apameidcz we find 

 Aporophyla australis ; and in another family, Had'enidce, Aporophyla is agam used 

 for two species formerly of the genus Epunda. As to nomenclature, Mr. South 

 has wisely followed Staudinger and Wocke, thereby accelerating the much-desired 

 assimilation of English to continental usage. The changes which are entailed by 

 Mr. South's adoption of a more correct nomenclature may not be very pleasing to 

 some or our collectors, but for them it will be wholesome practice to learn to use 

 scientific nomenclature precisely and accurately. Space prevents our mentioning 

 the changes of familiar names which the list presents, and we will confine ourselves 

 to the two which are most likely to perplex collectors. Doubleday's TriphcBna 

 siibsequa becomes T. orbona^ and his T. orbojta has to take the name of T. comes. 

 Cloantha perspicillaris becomes C. polyodon, and the Xylophasia will now be called 

 X. monoglypha. On the whole Mr. South has made a decided advance in the 

 rectification of our insular nomenclature, though he errs occasionally in not applying 

 the strict law of priority. For instance, the Goat Moth was named by Linnaeus as 

 Fhalcena {Bojubyx) Cossus, and ought therefore to stand in our lists as Cossus 

 cossus L. Then again, what rule has been followed in naming the Meadow Brown 

 Butterfly and the Clouded Buff Moth? The male and female of each of these 

 insects were described as distinct species by Linnaeus. If the first-mentioned insect 

 is to continue to be Satyrus janira, on the ground of the male name taking pre- 

 cedence of the female one, then that of the latter should become Nemeophila 

 san7iio and not N. russiila. If on the other hand the law of priority is to apply in 

 all its strictness, then Satyrus jurtina and Nemeophila sannio are the correct 

 names. We doubt whether there is any justification for the practice which Mr. 

 South adopts (and defends) of altering the spelling of names to make them 

 gi-ammatically or philologically correct. The true object of nomenclature is not 

 served by such corrections ; and if any are made they should be carefully indicated, 

 as is done by Dr. Staudinger. In respect of varieties, Mr. South's list has been but 

 imperfectly done, and his researches seem to have iDeen confined co one or two 

 of the principal journals. We miss any mention of some varieties which have been 

 described in provincial journals. It would have been better also if the list had dis- 

 tinguished clearly between the different categories of varieties, nor would it have 

 been out of place to have explained the meaning of the asterisks appended to a 

 few of the varietal names. 



But with all its faults the list is a distinct advance upon its predecessors, 

 and as such should be adopted as the standard of nomenclature until it is 

 superseded — as we hope it soon will be — by one of a more authoritative 

 character. The Entomological Society of London should no longer leave to 

 private enterprise the issue of a list of British Lepidoptera, and ought to lead the 

 van. The Society would do well to follow the example of other scientific 

 societies — notably that of the British Ornithologists' Union — and appoint a 

 committee to draw up a list that shall command the confidence and respect of all 

 students of that order, and in such a way as cannot be done by the venture of any 

 private individual or trading firm. But not only do we require a new catalogue, 

 but also a new monograph of British Lepidoptera. The weakness of British 

 Lepidopterists is shown by the fact that there is no complete British work of 

 recent date. Those of Stephens, Wood, Westwood, &c., are now old history, 

 while Stainton's admirable little work does not profess to be more than a 

 ' Manual, ' and Newman's, although the woodcuts are good and the descriptions 

 carefully drawn up, can hardly be considered as more than a collector's handbook, 

 inasmuch as it ignores synonymy and slurs over life history and geographical dis- 

 tribution. There is ample room for a work on British Lepidoptera which shall 

 deal adequately with every aspect of its subject. — Eds. 



Naturalist, 



