82 
THE entomologist’s RECORD. 
Dr. Wood contributes a most interesting article on “ Oviposition and 
the ovipositor in certain lepidoptera” {E.M.M.). 
The Guernsey Natural History Society held a very successful meeting 
at Guille-Alles Library in April. The subjects discussed were “ The 
Clays and other superficial deposits in Guernsey,” and “The Flora of 
Guernsey, compared with that of West Cornwall.” 
Our readers will hear with regret that our correspondent, Mr. R. 
Gillo of Bath, died on April 9th. 
The sub-genera Viminia, Cuspidia, and Bisulcia, Chapman. — 
Mr. A. G. Butler proposes sinking these names respectively for Pharetra^ 
Tricena and Arcio7nyscis of Hiibner. I would ask whether Dr. Chapman’s 
criticism i^Record i., pp. 269-270) of Mr. Butler’s superficial paper 
{Trafts. Ent. Soc. Lond.^ 1879) on this genus had anything to do with 
this result. As Dr. Chapman has not finished his paper, Mr. Butler 
cannot know the whole of Dr. Chapman’s arguments. Mr. Butler can 
only arrive at the substitution of Hiibner’s names by making the science 
subservient to names and not the names to science. Pharetra^ Hb. 
Butler by replacing Viminia^ Chpm. with this name would make 
Hiibner’s Pharetra include a part of that author’s Arctoinyscis and at 
least three outside genera, which could never possibly have been that 
author’s intention. Again he would include Hiibner’s Hyboma^ 
Joche( 2 ra, Acro7iicta and part of A7rto77iyscis in the same author’s TricB7ia^ 
which appears ridiculous, and if this be allowed, Hiibner’s diagnosis 
cannot be worthy of Dr. Chapman’s notice. Hiibner’s Arcto77iyscis does 
not even contain Dr. Chapman’s type of Bisulcia, but contains on Mr. 
Butler’s own showing {E7ito77i., pp. 111-112), a mixture of Cuspidia 
{aceris and 77iegacephala) and Vwimia {eupliorbicB var. 77iyricce), but no 
trace of Chapman’s type — ligustri. How in the name of common 
sense, can Hiibner’s names replace Chapman’s, worked out on the 
minute structure of ova and larvae of which no previous author seems 
to have had the slightest knowledge ? Of course, I am probably one 
of those “ unacquainted with the laws of zoological nomenclature ” as 
understood by Mr. Butler, but common sense appears against his 
application of them. Whatever does he mean, too, when he suggests 
that Butler should be quoted as the author of the genera that Hiibner 
indicated ? ” By all means, let him be quoted if he is so enraptured 
with “ Hiibner’s indications,’' but I fail to see how these hazy indica- 
tions interfere with Dr. Chapman’s exact science. — J. W. Tutt. 
The Value of the Genitalia in determining Species. — In the 
Record, vol. ii., p. 13, the editor expresses his doubt (? Ed.) as to the 
value of the specific characters afforded by the structure of the genital 
armature of the male lepidoptera, and cites the opinion of a recent 
writer in the Ca7tadia7i E7ito77iologist in support of his views. As, if I 
mistake not, I was amongst the first — in this country at least — to study 
the genital armature in the order lepidoptera, the result of my experi- 
ence may be of some little interest. In the course of my studies I 
have had occasion to examine the structure in a considerable number 
of species and in many individuals, and have never found it to be 
