Vlll 
INTRODUCTION. 
Hohenwarthiana and its congeners ; a new name therefore became 
necessary, and a transposition of the old one has been employed.” 
“It may he observed, in conclusion, that Guenee’s generic names 
are unaccompanied by descriptions: however, they, as also others 
similarly circumstanced, are subsequently employed, rather than 
substitute new ones, and thus add to the overwhelming numbers re¬ 
quired in the present advanced state of Zoology.” 
“ Some of the species of the genera Dichrorampha, Grapholita, 
Cnephasia, and Eupoecilia—especially of the two last—still require 
investigation as to their distinctness—they are either extremely va¬ 
riable, or more numerous than at present indicated ; from their 
general rarity their habits are unknown.” 
“Since the above remarks were penned three volumes of the 
‘Species general desLepidopteres,’ par M.M. Boisduval and Guenee, 
Paris, 1852, containing the “ Noctuelites ” by the latter author, 
have appeared: an elaborate work, but wholly destitute of specific 
characters!! It would not have been referred to here but for the 
capricious use of numerous specific, as well as generic, names 
bearing upon the points under discussion. In the case of the spe¬ 
cific names several of the alterations arise from the expansion of the 
‘ homonymic ’ system, above deprecated, amongst the Noctuidae ; 
while others arise from an apparent abrogation of the law of priority, 
although in p. 104, vol. vi. (ii.) a name is restored by reason of its 
‘ incontestable priorite.’ As instances of this abrogation may be 
noticed the following, in vol. v. (i.), viz.:— 
Page 102. Nonagria despecta, Treit. 1825. = Noctua rufa, Haw. 
1810. 
„ 106. Nonagria paludicola, Hub. 1816. = Noctua gemini- 
puncta, Hatchett , 1810: cam icone ! 
