INTRODUCTION. 
Vll 
being in the collection of the Entomological Society, which may be 
considered as a public one.’’ 
“ The attempt to justify the use of each generic name would not 
only be out of place in a mere Catalogue, but would occupy too 
much space ; it is, however, essential to allude to one or two 
instances of apparent ‘love of change,’ as it is too frequently 
termed, when one writer differs from another. Duponchel, in the 
‘ Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France,’ vol. 3, p. 433 
(1834), has a paper on the division of the Tortricidte into genera ; 
his 13th genus Ephippiphora, p. 446, is therein characterized, and 
T. dorsana given as the type; and this generic name is accordingly 
employed for the genus including dorsana and its congeners in the 
following pages. Guenee, in his Eur. Mic. Ind. Meth. p. 42, em¬ 
ploys Ephippiphora for scutulana and its allies, whereas only two 
of Guenee’s species are included by Duponchel therein, and those 
placed at the end — one of them, fcenella, being subsequently re¬ 
moved by him to Pasdisca, in which genus he includes nearly the 
whole of the species enumerated by Guenee, under Ephippiphora. 
This transposition of the names caused Guenee, as he adopts both 
genera, to propose a new one for the true Ephippiphorae (Stigmo- 
nota, G .); and as of course Duponchel’s original name must be 
restored to its proper position, the name Halonota is subsequently 
proposed herein, for Ephippiphora of Guenee.” 
“ One other instance only shall be noticed:—Treilschke, in his 7th 
vol. p. 232, proposes the genus Grapholita, and divides it into two 
sections A and B. Section B, including Petiverella, is synonymous 
with Ephippiphora, and section A, as hereafter employed under the 
name Grapholita, is converted by additions into Catoptria by 
Guenee, while he employs Grapholita to designate those insects im- 
properly forced into section A, by Treitschke in his 8th vol., with 
