The characters of this genus are given at length under the name of Tenthredoides (Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil., iv., p, 29o), which airpears to be synonymous. It may be easily recognized by the short robust body, rather lalge transverse head, stout legs, broad ampie wings (which are, gencrally fuliginous). and especially by the form of the marginal cell, which is rather suddenly constricted (or somewhat reclivate) at tip of second sub-marginal cell, and thence narrowed to the apex, which is somewhat incurved, and reaches the extreme apex of the wing; this, as well as the second and third submarginal cells, are indistinctly defined, the nervures being sub-obsolete.

In the second volume (1863,) of the Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia, I published a paper on some of our Lepidopterous larvae, and among other descriptions there appeared one purporting to be that of Plusia balluca. By some unfortunate mishap a description of the larva of V. interrogationis was sent in place of the intended one of balluca, and the mistake was not discovered until after the number had been issued, while all trace of the original description of the larva of balluca was lost. I did not again meet with this larva until the summer of 1871, when a fresh description was taken on the l5th of June, as follows

C. uegerfasciella, ante p. 114, and C. minutisimella, ante p. 125.

When the generic and specific characters of these insects were written –more than a year ago–I placed them, with much doubt, among the Micro-Lepidoptera. Sub equent examination has only served to increase those doubts, or rather, has convinced me that they are allied to the Hydroptilidoe, and are Trichopterous. if Hydroptila is Trichopterous. At the same time, it was partly because I was unable satisfacicrily to place them in Hydroptila, or any allied genus heretofore described, that I was induced to place them among Micro-Lepidoptera.

Since the preceeding accounts of the genera Evippe, Eidothea and Helice were sent to the publishers, I have taken a single speciment of the species described below. Its small size, general appearance and the tufts of raised scales at first inclined me to place it near Laruna; but a, closer examination shows it to belong to the Gelechidæ, and to the same group (or subsection of Gelechia) witin Evippe, &c. and Gelechia difficilisella.

Primaries–The costa attains the margin before the middle ; the subcostal, which is faint towards the base, sends a branch to the margin from before the middle, two others near the end of the cell, another beyond the cell and becomes furcate before the tip, one of the branches going to each margin. Cell closed by a very short oblique discal vein without branches. The median sends two branches to the margin before the end of the cell, and becomes furcate behind it. Submedian furcate at base. Wing lanceolate, with moderately long ciliæ.

Several years ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science appointed a committee to reconsider the canons of biological nomenclature, and to report whether, with the growth of science, they requrired any additions or alterations. No report has yet been made, nor, so far as we are aware, is any likely to be presented, until the subject is again brought prominently forrvard and new instructions given. Professor A. E. Verrill has since repubiished the Revised Rules of Zoological Nomenclature adopted by the British Association for the Advancement of science in 1865, and has accompanied them by a few apt comments; in England, Mr. W. F. Kirby, in a paper read before the Linnean Society of London, has called attention to the extensive changes which a strict adherence to the laws of priority would cause in the generic nomenclature of butterflies; and quite recently has put the same into practice in his catalogue of these insects.

The publication of Mr. Scudder's Revision has caused much dismay among amateurs, on account of the numerous specific changes and minute generic sub-divisions which it proposes.

To students of Lepidoptera the novel, and in many cases, original views advanced afford a fertile field for discussion. Mr. scudder has attempted to study the order by the same methods, and to correct its tangled specific nomenclature by the same principles which govern a1l other departments of Zoology.

(This is a section of Tinea having the wings tufted and narrower than in Tinea.)

Head and face rough (as in Tinea), tongue very short. Maxillary palpi folded; labial palpi drooping, with the terminal joint more than half as long as the second, which has a few bristles beneath ; eyes globose; no ocelli. Antennae two-thirds as long as wings, filliform. Anterior wings with raised tufts of scales, the tufts generally rather brightly coloured ; lanceolate, narrower than in Tinea; the costal vein attains the margin before the middle; discal cell closed by a straight distinct discal vein, which gives off four branches, two of them to the costal and two to the dorsal margin, one of the latter near the apex.

The above title, which forms the subject-matter of the present article, is one that has claimed the attention of the most eminent naturalists of all time. Although much has been said and written upon the subject, still there is room for more. As science advances in its onward march new facts are developed ; some of these have a tendency to subvert long established principles, others to conErm pre-existent notions.

It seems probable to me that Limenitis proserpina will be found related to L. arthemis, the two being forms of one species, as in Grapta comma and dryas, and I desire to call the attention of Lepidopterists who live where these species or forms are found, that they may observe them from this point of view. They are alike in size and shape, and so far as my experience and that of Mr. Mead goes (confined in both cases to the Catskill Mountains), they are always associated.

while looking over some o1d memoranda a few days ago, I found the following, ,which may Prove interesting to the readers of the Entomologist.

In the summer of the year 1830, while residing in the northern part of the County of Northumberland, England, in the capacity of a farm student, I was requested to carry out a sentence of death upon a worthless cur, which had been condemned as an incorrigible cattle chaser.

This interesting little beetle, of which we give an enlarged drawing, as well as a representation of its larva, in fig. 18, is a very destructive creature, dreaded by every Entomologist who has had any experience of its ravages. Its larva is very destructive also in some carelessly kept provision and household stores, affecting hams, bacon, old cheese and other substances. It is a European insect, which has long been naturalized in this country, where it seems to be quite as much at home as in its native land.