23 
his undetermined species has failed to discover any description at 
all applicable to it. I can only record, at present, the following 
synonyms:— 
miata, Schwarz, Beytr., ii., p. 154, pi. xx. A., fig. 9 (1794), nec 
Linn. [Schwarz also cites o-miata, Mull., in the synonymy, but, 
although that species has never been determined, Muller’s description 
shows it cannot belong here.] 
infrequentata, Haw., Lep. Brit., p. 330 (1809). [Haworth’s caesiata, 
taken commonly at Peckham in February, cannot have been the 
“ Simon pure” unless the data supplied him were entirely erroneous; 
his infrequentata, without exact locality, certainly represents caesiata, 
and apparently a rather pale form, with the band fairly distinct, 
though bifid at the costa, as in the type.] 
pyrenaria (? auct.) ined., is stated by Lalanne (Man. Ent., p. 227, 
1822) to be the name under which he has seen caesiata “ in one 
collection.” I take this opportunity to express my dissent from the 
view of Rothschild and Jordan (Revision of the Sphingidae) that no 
useful purpose can possibly be served by recording “ museum ” or 
other manuscript names in synonymy. On the contrary, I hold it a 
duty to record them when they are known. It is not inconceivable 
that cases might arise where important service would be done to 
biological science by such a course ; it is well known that many able 
writers are careless bibliographers, and may easily publish valuable 
biological notes in connection with some “museum” name which 
has never been published, their work, therefore, in the future becoming 
almost useless. To some extent, I can instance actual cases. For 
example, in 1816, a French entomologist, Lelorgne de Savigny, 
published an important work under the title of Memories mr les 
Amman.v sans Yertebres, in which he embodies some original studies in 
the mouth parts of insects ; in the course of these there are anatomical 
details given of four “inedited” species —Minyas polygoni, Strigina 
goae, Ismene pelusia, and Lyndia cannarum. So far as I have been 
able to learn, no other reference to these is to be found in literature; 
but I, for one, should be very grateful to any of his contemporaries 
whom I might discover to have published a note to the effect that 
such-and-such known species existed in the Paris Museum, or in 
Savigny’s private collection, under these names, even though the 
publisher of the note might not have been aware that any other 
elucidation depended upon it. One or two other, though less striking 
cases, have come under my notice in my own studies of the literature 
of the Geometridae — e.g., some observations of Scharfen berg’s in 
Scriba’s Journal, in 1790, included certain “ nomina nuda ” which, 
however, have become intelligible through their author’s own 
determinations of them published fifteen years later (in Bechstein and 
Scharfenberg’s Schddliche Furstinsekten, vol. iii.). 
But I must not spend further time in this digression, as “ the 
variation of Entepliria caesiata ” is awaiting more detailed consideration. 
The type of the species is the ordinary German and Austrian form, 
with bluish-grey tint and conspicuous dark band, and is fixed with 
quite unusual clearness and unanimity. Not only does Schiffermiiller’s 
meagre diagnosis point defininitely to this form, but the fuller 
descriptions of Lang, Borkhausen, and Treitschke, and the figure by 
Hubner (a little too blue, but recognisable) also represent the same. 
