INTRODUCTION. 
V 
was applied, supposing it to be original, in 1850, but lo ! Zetterstedt 
in bis ‘Insecta Lapponica,’ published in 1840, has a Conchylis West- 
woodana; consequently the poor Carpocapsa should receive a new 
name : it however appears that Haworth described a bad specimen 
of the insect in question from the identical example now remark¬ 
ably enough in Mr. Westwood’s collection, under the name of T. 
expailidana, and which is restored to the species in this Catalogue : 
proceeding with the name under consideration—as one only amongst 
several almost similarly circumstanced — it will be found that Seo- 
poli, in his JEnt. Cam. p. 235, 1763, has a Tortrix rufana widely 
different to the Vienna species, probably Paramesia Shepherdana 
or P. ferrugana, and therefore from priority (were the reference cer¬ 
tain) rufana should be employed for the Scopolian insect, and the 
Peronea ought to receive a new appellation, in accordance with the 
modern views herein repudiated ; it being clearly a vitious principle 
to re-employ—as is, however, constantly done—a name once rejected 
if one of a kind is alone to be used in each principal group.” 
“Again, there is a Tortrix grossana, Haw. L. B. 1812 (Carpocapsa 
fagiglandana, Heyd. MSS.), whose specific name is still retained,— 
and with strict propriety as regards the ordinary rules of nomenclature, 
— although there is a T. grossana of Thunberg , I. S. p. 45, 1791, a 
Lozotaenia, allied to Branderiana, but not indigenous, and omitted 
in modern Catalogues of European Lepidoptera, although -well- 
known to, and mentioned by, Zetterstedt in 1840. At least a score 
of similar instances might be added.” 
“ The tendency of the rule in question to promote confusion is thus 
cursorily but manifestly shown : it is however advisable to apply 
entirely unused names for new species, as far as practicable; a point 
notwithstanding of the utmost difficulty in the present prolific state 
of entomological literature : e. g. under the genus Retinia there is a 
A 3 
