182 THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S WEEKLY INTELLIGENCER. 
shall be happy to supply each month the 
names (iu numbers from the ‘Manual’) 
of such as are to be expected during the 
ensuing month. 
My plan has only, as yet, extended to 
the first volume. 
I would also recommend all who can 
draw to figure with accuracy every cater- 
pillar they find. I h)ok back upon this 
part of my labours with much satisfac- 
tion. In additiou to the caterpillar, I 
have made a maguified drawing of one 
segment when the markings appeared 
indistinct. 
Yours truly, 
Edwin Tearle. 
Gainsborouyh, Feb, 18. 
lakvjE to be looked for in march. 
213, 214,232, 233, 236,238, 239, 243, 
258, 266, 274, 280, 283, 286, 290, 301, 
304, 326, 330, 331, 332, 414, 420, besides 
the hyberuating Chelonidcc. 
imago for march. 
2, 180, 211, 352, 554, 355, 356, 357, 
359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 436. 
NOTICES OF BOOKS. 
An Accentuated List of the British Lepi- 
doptera, with Hints on the Deriva- 
tion of the Names. Published by 
the Eutoinological Societies of Ox- 
ford and Cambridge. London : Van 
Voorst, 1858. 8vo, pp. 118. 
Within the last few years a very great 
impulse has been given to the pursuit of 
entomological Science throughout the 
counUy, and many local Societies have 
been formed for promoting its cultivation. 
About two years ago both at Oxford and 
Cambridge such Societies were esta- 
blished, and we have now before us a 
work which they have jointly undertaken, 
with the view of afibrding the true jiro- 
nunciation and derivation of the names 
of all the species of butterflies and moths 
found in these islands, which generally 
form the earliest subjeets of the young 
amateur’s pursuit, of which the number 
is now ascertained to be nearly two 
thousand. 
The nomenclature of Natural History 
forms an important branch of the Science. 
The necessity for a fixed series of intel- 
ligible names for the myriads of created 
beings which have already become the 
objects of study must be at once evident. 
“Nomina si nescis peril et cognitio 
rerum ” is the first Linnean canon. That 
a person may observe the habits and de- 
scribe the structure of a creature or plant 
of the name of which he is ignorant there 
can be no doubt, of which the incompar- 
able memoirs of Reaumur are sufficient 
evidence, but many of the most excellent 
observations of Reaumur have become a 
dead letter to the modern enquirer, be- 
cause they were unaccompanied by the 
name of the object, which was not suffi- 
ciently and technically described. It is 
true the early naturalists adopted a mode 
of distinguishing such of their species of 
plants and animals as were not of com- 
mon occurrence by a sentence indicating 
their characters and distinctions, but the 
powerful mind of Liniueus at once per- 
ceived the cumbrousness of such a system 
of identification. “ Horrenda,” he ex- 
claims, “ sunt nomina specified vetermn 
sesquipedalia, qum descriptiones loco dif- 
ferentiarum sistuut;” and it is to this 
famous man that we are indebted for the 
binomial system of nomenclature, which 
has, for nearly a century, been almost ex- 
clusively employed by naturalists, and by 
which the relation of the object to its 
congeners, as well as its distinction from 
them, is at once apparent. Thus the 
common Red Admiral butterfly, instead 
of being named as by Petiver, “ Papilio 
major nigrescens tricolor circulo fere sau- 
giiinco ornaius,” was by J.inna'us desig- 
nated Papilio Atalanta, the lirst of these 
