1 4Q [Novem be 
L. lurideola Ccomplanula), common; A. interfectaria, not rare ; A. inornata, 
have taken four ; E. consignata, one ; E. linaHata, two ; E. dondonceata, three o 
fonr ; S. vetulata, two ; X. suUustris, one ; N. saponarice, two ; C. trwrpheus, con 
mon ; C. alsines, attracted to light in three localities— in one plentiful ; A. aqidliru 
common at flowers, especially Centranthus macrosiphon ; A. porphyrea, one at lighi 
E. fulvago, one ; C. pyra,lina, one at light ; P. ccespitalis, one. — J. E. Fletchei 
"Worcester, 12tli August, 1868. 
Abuses in nomenclature.— 1 write to call the attention of the readers of th 
Entomologist's Monthly Magazine to abuses of nomenclature, which are growing i 
such magnitude among both British and foreign Entomologists as to threaten soo 
to become of very serious inconvenience. I do not intend to quote many instance 
but I hope this protest may not be altogether useless. 
In the first place it is very common, when a name is required for a new speci( 
or genus, to combine it out of that of an old one. Thus we have for prefixes, i 
both species and genera, Hypo-, Fseudo-, Anti-, Epi-, Neo-, Hetero-, and man 
others ; and for affixes, -oides, -ides, -ina, -ideus, -ella, -ilia, &c. I will give jui 
one instance of the absurdity of this practice. In my Manual of European Buttei 
flies, I adopted the MS. name of Hypoxanthe for a new Chrysophamis. The tn 
Xanthe, by the revolutions of synonymy, had already changed its name, so that tl 
new species had worse than a nonsense-name ; it had a name that tended, if an; 
thing, to perpetuate error and confusion. 
Another practice existing alongside with the other, and, if possible, likely i 
become move serious, is that of using the name of a genus as the specific name ( 
a new species in another genus (often the next) which has some superficial r( 
semblance to it. This custom, which is, I believe, much more prevalent abroa 
than at home, is most objectionable, for it is highly probable that in some instauc( 
at least, the supposed superficial resemblance may prove real, and the species ma 
find itself in the genus whose name it already bears, necessitating that greatest ( 
evils in nomenclature, a change of the name of a species. 
Again, I wish to ask, is it allowable, when a careless author has founde 
innumerable bad genera which have been ignored by common consent for fifl 
years, to upset well-established genera combining several of his, to restore h 
obsolete names, merely because one of his types happens to fall into some goc 
modern genus ? I shall be glad to have the opinions of others on these points.- 
W. E. KiEBY, Dublin, Augicst 2oth. 
Note having reference to hereditary variation.— Onr friend Mr. Harrison sent mi 
last year, some eggs of a betularia that had " selected " a black partner, and th 
spring I bred from them two black females and one black male, and five othe] 
very darkly mottled. — H. D'Oetille, Alphington, near Exeter. 
Note on variation in Amphydasis hetula/ria.—^y friend, the late George Gibsoi 
received from Mr. Harrison of Manchester, through Dr. Knaggs, some eggs of 2 
heiularia which were intended to produce an intermediate variety in the imag< 
He fed the larvse, I think, on birch, and at his death the pupae were handed over i 
