ERRATA AND CORRIGENDA. 
—_—————___ — 
P. 14. lin. ult. With reference to the capture of Sphinx Pinastri in Ravelston W ood, near Edinburgh, positively 
denied by Mr. Duncan, Mr. Stephens has been so kind as to show me the following entry by Dr. Leach in his manuscripts 
written before he was appointed naturalist to the British Museum :—“ In Rivelstone W ood, a me ipso semel lectus. Dom. 
J. Wilson, Collegii janitor, bis lexit prope Edinburgh.” 1811. 
P. 16, line 17—/for “lineata” read ** Livornica.” 
— line 23—‘“‘ Species 5” for “‘ Species 1.” 
P. 24, line 7—/for “fire spotted” read “ five spotted.” 
P. 31.—“ The two Anthrocerze (omitted in Plate 6, and represented in Plate 8), are from the collection of Mr. Stephens, 
who considers them established as distinct British species ; he, however, differs from Dr. Becker, of Wiesbaden, who is 
decidedly of opinion, from all he has seen, that we have only two species—namely, A. F ilipendule and A. Loti. In the 
description of Plate 6, I mentioned my suspicion that some mistake existed with respect to the caterpillars of A. Filipendule 
or A. Loti, which has been the means of furnishing me with the following satisfactory remarks, communicated by the 
Rev. W. T. Bree, which prove that my suspicion was not unfounded. The larva of A. Filipendule, as figured by Hiibner 
(my fig. 12, plate 6), and described by others on his authority, being totally unlike nature—Mr. Bree says, “* The cater- 
pillars of A. Filipendule and A. Loti are somewhat onisciform, but not so short and thick as your figure of Ino statices, yet 
exceedingly unlike in form to your figure of Filipendule. The two species occur in this neighbourhood (near Coventry), but 
in different localities, Loti being found in heathy bogs, and Filipendule in low meadows and grassy woods ; occasionally I 
have met with specimens of each in the locality of the other, but this was not usual, which tended to convince me, among 
other circumstances, that they were distinct species. This view of the distinctness of even these two species does not, 
however, seem fully borne out by the appearance of the larve ; for Mr. Bree goes on to state, ‘I have often seen the cater- 
pillars of each, and though I never compared them accurately, side by side, together, yet I can safely say that there is no 
very obvious difference between them;’ and says that the rough figures in Harris’s Aurelian, and in Wilkes, are 
evidently the true caterpillar, and not by any means bad representations... (H. N. H.) 
P. 50, line 9—Zeuzera Arundinis was taken by Mr. H. Doubleday at Whittlesea Mere, and not in Epping Forest. 
P. 67—add “ Sercius 4, NoroponTa TRITOPHUS. 
“ Syn.— Bombyx tritophus, Fabr. ; Esper. ; Ochsenheimer ; Godart ; Hiibner (text) ; Douglas, in Entomol. p. 385. 
Bombyx torva, Hiibner, fig. 27, but not of Ochsenheimer. 
Closely allied to Notodonta ziczac, with the fore wings clouded with brown, and with somewhat obsolete waved dusky 
strige, watt a central ferruginous lunule, edged with white; hind wings, with a stripe of yoni on the 7 edge. 
Caterpillar ‘‘ oreenish-gray coloured, having three prominences on the back,” very much resembling that of N. ziZA, 
The larva taken in July, 1842, by J. W. Douglas, Esq., from an aspen tree on the coast of Essex. It formed a slight 
covering between two leaves in the collecting-box, and appeared in the perfect state on the 10th August. 
P. 90, line 11—/for “are” read “ is.” 
P. 104, line 4—for “rosea” read “ miniata.” 
P. 114.—The Synonymes of several of the species of the larger genera puree s the CMe een: of the maraly 
Noctuida, especially Agrotis and Graphiphora, are still extremely confused. In ECE nee prone I received great assist- 
ance from Messrs. H. Doubleday and Bentiey, to whom our best thanks are due for their ue attentions. I ness not refer to 
any particular passages in proof of the valuable aid they have afforded to this work, hecatise it has beer my desire throughout 
(and I believe there is not a single page which does not prove this), to mouiner to each his due. Ene the oe of ane 
work referring to these genera were published, several papers have appeared in the “ Eatomologtet, upon the classification 
and nomenclature of this difficult family, to which the reader is referred. The task pe tee ci the ROMBRO AMIR of many 
of these species, and of determining the strict identity of many supposed English apes att those ‘ tee ee 
has yet to be accomplished ; but the laborious exertions of the gentlemen above eutot with several a a ae y pas oe 
will go far to remove many of the doubts that still remain. Greater attention ought unquestionably to be devoted to 

| 

