V 
Foreword, 
(Partly from Notes left by Prof. Dr. Ad. Seitz, who died on 5th March 1938.) 
The publication of Main Volume III of our monumental work took place in the years 1909 to 1913 
and the Editor in his remarks in the Preface of this Supplementary Volume mentioned, that in broad out¬ 
line, the arrangement of the original Volume would be followed and in general this accords with the principles 
of Hampson’s Catalogue of the Lepidoptera Pludaenae and other existing Catalogues. As, however, Hampson's 
masterly work appeared after ours, Warren, who edited our Main Volume III, did not have the advantage 
thereof and was unable to arrange his classifications and systematization etc accordingly. This would, of course, 
have been desirable, had it been possible. The Editor of this Supplementary Volume considered it of prime 
importance, for reasons of comparison and lucidity, to follow our original classification and not to re-arrange 
matters on the basis of Hampson's work. There are therefore certain discrepancies, as for instance, in the 
Acronictinae, Mominae and Bryophilinae, where our publication was “issued before Hampson's corresponding 
chapters were ready. Hampson classified the Acronictinae subfamilies after Amphipyra etc. On the other 
hand the Melicleptriinae and Heliotkidinae, which we have placed near the end of our Volume, would, on 
account of the spined tibiae, have had to be placed at the commencement near the Agrotinae. 
Neither the Editor nor the Publishers have overlooked the fact that during the last few years a per¬ 
ceptible evolution has taken place in descriptive Entomology. Greater importance is continually being attached 
to anatomical and microscopical details, as compared with the earlier method of macroscopical characteristics 
and the habits of the insects. A number of renowned scientists has come to the conclusion that the modern, 
more physiological examination of specimens calls for a more exact differentiation, based on structural charact¬ 
eristics. These are said to be of greater importance than the earlier more obvious and superficial features and 
it is held that they should be given first consideration. It can easily be realised that, from our standpoint, 
we are reluctant to introduce a rather one-sided system of basing ourselves almost exclusively on anatomical 
differences. We have to bear in mind that ours is a general work, that 95% of our readers are amateurs, en¬ 
thusiasts and collectors, whereas only 5% are scientists. Prof. Dr. Seitz has also repeatedly drawn attention 
to the fact, that in a work that is limited as to capacity, it is impossible to give too minute anatomical or 
extensive descriptions. In the Supplement of the Macrolepidoptera of the World, a little more latitude has 
been allowed in this regard and where space has permitted, the Editor has given rather more detail than in 
the past. 
Further we have felt that our illustrations are the best and most desired medium, not only for the 
purpose of denominating, but also for the arrangement of collections. Over 4000 illustrations were given in 
the Main Volume and we have now added a further 1600. The technique of the illustrator's art has made 
notable progress in the last 20 years. Very numerous new species have been discovered, especially in palae- 
arctic Asia and Africa. Many forms also, that were previously not available, have now been secured for illu¬ 
strative purposes. In the Preface of Volume HI it was mentioned, that some of the illustrations, especially 
of the rarer species, left much to be desired, as only poor illustrations in former works were available for repro¬ 
duction. In many cases these have now been replaced by better illustrations, as the difficulties of obtaining 
fresh types of the original insects have been overcome. As the Editor has explained in the subsequent short 
Preface, as a matter of principle, British specimens have been used as typical of British species. Little atten¬ 
tion was paid in the past to small divergences from continental specimens of the same moth. The task of the 
Macrolepidoptera was never intended to be a monographic differentiation of local races, but a brief account 
of the characteristic features of each species and its main subforms. The great majority of aberrations that are 
