IV 
INTRODUCTION. 
which doubt is attached as to their indigenous pretensions, are dis¬ 
tinguished by an asterisk (*) prefixed. 
JOHN EDWARD GRAY. 
British Museum , 
April \%th, 1852. 
, Note. — Mr. Stephens observes, “ He has pursued the plan com¬ 
menced in the former part of this Catalogue, not only as to the 
arrangement of the contents, but in respect to all other particulars of 
nomenclature, &c. Upon this last-mentioned subject, however, he is 
desirous of adding a few remarks elucidatory of his opinions thereon, 
more especially as regards the nomenclature of the species, as from 
adhering to a rule hereunder noticed, many of the names have been 
by modern writers unnecessarily changed, and thus the “ Babel ” per¬ 
plexity has been increased, will increase, and must continue increas¬ 
ing, unless a vigorous stand is made to arrest, its progress, by 
adhering as strictly as practicable solely to priority: e. g. the Tor- 
trix bistriana, Haw., has (correctly enough) been referred to the 
T. rufana, W. V. 1775, and this last name properly retained for the 
species, as a Peronea, (vide page 8). In the author’s ‘ Illustrations ’ 
there is a Carpocapsa rufana, now this name has been changed to 
Westwoodiana — as by the modern Micro-lepidopterological rules, 
alluded to above, there must not be two species, of the same name, 
in the higher groups terminating in ana , ella , &c.: f this last name 
“f Guenee (Mi. 83) discards the name Cribrum, as impossible to 
be employed , amongst the Tineae, because it is applied to a Bombyx! 
Can absurdity go further ? What would the Coleopterist do with 
his rufipes, pallidipennis, ater, &c. by following out so capricious a 
rule ? ” 
