VI 
PREFACE. 
from life from actual specimens. The chance of being able to illustrate almost every species of Arctianae, 
and nearly all from perfect specimens, we owe to the generous assistance of Lord Rothschild, who has so 
kindly placed the necessary material at our disposal, in spite of all the additional difficulties that were in¬ 
curred by the outbreak of the World War. In the same way the Sphingidae, Drepanidae among other groups, 
were all illustrated from specimens in the Tring Museum and I am glad of this opportunity to express my 
sincere gratitude for the support accorded to me and this work. Thanks are also due to the British Museum 
for placing at our disposal a large number of types, so that we could incorporate copies of same. W 7 e are 
likewise indebted to the Zoological Museum of Berlin and numerous private collectors for the loan of type 
specimens, which have enabled us to make the illustrations of this Volume as comprehensive and complete as 
possible. 
The present Volume has suffered more than any other under the adverse circumstances prevailing 
during the period of publication. Just the work connected with the elaboration of the Heterocera, especially 
the families Syntomidae and Arctiidae, has been most interfered with, by the disturbances caused by the 
World War. Sir George Hampson published in November 1914 (i. e. after the commencement of the war) 
the magnificently illustrated Supplement of his “Catalogue" and this only reached Germany in 1918, too 
late for the inclusion in this work or even in the supplements of many of the numerous new species enume¬ 
rated therein. In the case of the 6th Volume which appeared a little later, it was still possible, in spite of 
great difficulties, to include the corrections and additions (Vol. 6, p. 195—217). The final completion of these 
families of Volume 10, must now be left until a Supplementary Volume can be taken in hand. This incident 
will show the harm that can be done to international work by the suspension of communication between cul¬ 
tured peoples and when authors of scientific works are forced to carry on their work without the possibility 
of intercourse and cooperation. 
Numerous discrepancies that have occurred, indicate the danger of a rigid adherence to the methods 
of nomenclature. Especially when same are declared to be sacrosanct and when usual conventions and customs, 
as laid down in the “nomenclatural rules and regulations" are superseded by inviolable “nomenclatural 
laws". If I revert once more to these rules in their relationship to the whole of this work, it is because of 
the controversy that has arisen from the remarks in the Preface to the preceding Volume 9. When publishing 
same I would never have thought that it would have been necessary to justify our point of view. It appears 
however that in some circles, that have perhaps not been in a position to follow all the endless disputation 
on this subject, the standpoint of the editor is not fully appreciated. 
It is necessary to realise that the publication of this work was envisaged to spread itself over a number 
of years and that during this time, it was to be presumed that the nomenclatural rules themselves would be 
subject to many modifications. Apart from such principles, that are elementary and self-understood, the 
rules have been so often re-modelled and modified, that the more recently published Parts of the Macro- 
1 e p i d o p t e r a would not have agreed — in regard to denominations and the system of same — with the 
Parts completed 20 years ago. It must be remembered that in the early years of this century, when the plans 
of this work were discussed and laid down, only a rough draft of the rules of zoological nomenclature was 
in existence. And at that time these proposals were rejected by an overwhelming majority of the leading 
zoologists. It would therefore have been particularly absurd to bind ourselves in advance to such proposals, 
when taking in hand a work of such magnitude as the present one. In the state of affairs prevailing at that 
time, it was not difficult to foresee that the rules, that were then being formulated, would never be adopted 
in that form. Further it was to be expected that the inadequacies manifest in the drafting would soon become 
so apparent that modifications would have to be made. To refer only to the rule dealing with the mode 
of denomination, that set no limit to the giving of names, was it not apparent that indiscreet or egotistic 
persons might turn same to improper use, to the detriment of science ? 
The editor with his many years experience as a professional breeder, having acted as official expert 
and judge in questions of race, was able to see at the outset, when this codex was first mooted, that there 
would be unavoidable differences of opinion in the interpretation of races and populations. He therefore had 
great compunction in insisting on a rigidly uniform attitude on the part of his sub-editors and collabora¬ 
tors. Quite apart from this however any attempt at such a thing would scarcely have been successful, as 
on many debatable points everyone had his own interpretation. 
In this question of nomenclature — especially on the point of the rules of priority — if one were 
to abide by the strict letter of the law, any layman could at his own free will and discretion re-denominate 
almost any of the commonest and best known species. It would only be necessary to create the impression 
and conviction that a well-known name denoted by Linne, Fabricius, Cramer, Haworth or any other respected 
