14 
THE SUBSTITUTE. 
quite sufficient difficulties, in the 
way of the adoption of a universal 
nomenclature, without adding new 
ones. 
We have been led to this sub- 
ject by an article in ‘ The Natural 
History Review’ on the ‘Manual 
of British Butterflies and Moths,’ 
in which the writer is wrath with 
IMr. Stainton for departing from 
the generic arrangement adopted 
in Mr. H. Doubleday’s List of 
British Lepidoplera, and demand- 
ing the reason. It seems to us 
that the reason is contained in 
the characters laid down for the 
genera ; they may or may not be 
sufficient — that is another ques- 
tion — but there they are. We 
Lave our own opinion about the 
matter, but it is founded upon 
data widely different from those of 
the reviewer, who, as a specimen, 
gives his own reasons for beeping 
the genus Lithosia of Doubleday 
intact, namely, “ that all the larvae 
are lichen-feeders, all the insects 
(all at least we have met with) lie, 
when at rest, with the wings 
folded round the body, and in 
general form and appearance 
closely resemble each other.” One 
who sets up as a judge of others, 
and can himself do no better than 
this, had better abdicate the judg- 
ment seat as soon as possible. We 
do not go into the merits of the 
‘Manual’ at all; it is evident 
that the changes set forth are 
held to be objectionable whether 
they are right or wrong, simply 
because they are changes. To 
such persons as our reviewer re- 
presents science and system are 
quite supplementary ; to possess a 
collection of insects, with names, 
is everything. It may be some- 
thing new to the reviewer to hear 
that a list, such as that he alludes 
to, without characters of genera or 
descriptions of species, is no au- 
thority at all for quotation, that to 
be the first of British Lepidop- 
terists is not to be “ the first of 
British entomologists,” and that a 
‘Manual of Moths and Butter- 
flies’ is not a Manual of Entomo- 
logy. We may again revert to 
this subject. 
TO COKEESPONDENTS. 
AH communications to he authen- 
ticated by the name of the writer, 
and to he addressed To the Edi- 
tor OF ‘The Substitute,’ 9, 
Devonshire Street, Bishops- 
GATE Street, London. 
It is particularly requested that 
all Names of Insects may be written 
plainly and withotU abbreviation, 
and that they may be airanged in 
the order of any of the printed 
lists. 
‘The Substitute’ will be con- 
tinued for Twenty weeks, and will 
be forwarded weekly by post to 
Subscribers of Five Shillings, 
which amount may be sent in 
postage stamps to the publisher. 
T. Chapman. — List received 
with thanks. 
DUPLICATES AND DESIDERATA. 
Duplicate Lepidoplera . — I have 
a few fine s])ccimens for exchange 
of Cosmia fulvago, Lvpcrina con~ 
7iexa, Pyrophila pyramidea, he., 
(See. — William Rodgers, Gar- 
dener, Moorgate Grove, Rother- 
ham; October 17, ISoO. 
