Xll 
INTRODUCTION. 
mentioned, it was manifestly impossible to predicate then that 
the now well-known species was a common and a variable one: and 
moreover, these remarks of Guenee are made in 1852, notwith¬ 
standing’ the corrections of the synomyny were made in p, 136, of 
the former part of this Catalogue, published in 1850, of which 
Guenee should have been aware, as he quotes the genus Ccenobia 
therefrom in a preceding page (102) of his volume.’’ 
“ Allusion has been made to the change of the name Crihrum 
amongst the Tinese, in consequence of there being a Crihrum in 
Bombyx. Why therefore is anachoreta introduced by Guenee as 
a Noctua (vol. vi. p. 196) seeing that there is a long established 
Bombyx anachoreta P And again, Mamestra Brassicce retains its 
name notwithstanding the well-known Papilio (Pieris) Brassicse of 
our gardens.” 
“ In conclusion, it may be added that these remarks are intro¬ 
duced solely with a view to point out the palpable inconvenience 
of the proposed system, and not from any captious spirit of 
opposition 
