THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 49 



and for the species for which they were employed binomially" Now, here 

 is Andropodum in Franck's Catalogue, precisely the equivalent of 

 Mancipiuni of the Tentamen (which latter is already set up as a genus 

 in the Sketch and stamped Hub., 1806), and is substituted for it in the 

 Verzeichniss, employed to cover 44 species belonging to many genera. 

 Mr. Scudder pounces at random on one of these, which happens to be 

 //aire, and stands it up as type of the new-old genus Andropodum Hiib., 

 1825, not taking the trouble to first pull down Mancipiuni. I have not 

 examined the Zutraege, and for aught I know there may be a third equi- 

 valent of Mancipiuni found there, which also is one of these genera. 

 Geyer says that what Hiibner thought erroneous in the Verzeichniss" he 

 tried to amend in the Zutraege, and he may not unreasonably have seen 

 fit to amend his Stirps 5 names the second time. Certainly, had he done 

 so, we should have triplicate genus names in the Hist. Sketch. For some 

 reason not stated, Mr. Scudder has attributed the name Archon type 

 Machaon to the Syst. Alph. Verz. 1825, instead of to Franck's Catalogue, 

 1825, where its compeers are found, in disregard of his own statement 

 before quoted as to the use of the trinomials — for in the Syst. Alph. Verz. 

 the species Machaon stands as Archon heroic us Machaon. 



Of course Franck's sale Catalogue, as regards authority in nomencla- 

 ture, does not differ from Deyrolle's (Paris) sale Catalogue, or that of any 

 other professional dealer in insects. I have a catalogue of a dealer in 

 flower seeds, from Ipswich, Fngland, in which all the names are arranged 

 under the latest approved botanical system, and accompanying each is a 

 brief indication of the habit, color and nature of the plant. This cata- 

 logue would scarcely be allowed by Dr. Gray to have authority in 

 botanical nomenclature, and yet it has as much claim to that dignity as 

 this Franck Catalogue, and in fact more, as it gives some sort of description 

 of each plant mentioned. 



We may infer, then, that zoologists have not merely to rummage for 

 drafts and printed slips, but for sale catalogues as well, before they can 

 reach the right basis of their nomenclature ! 



In the Historical Sketch are about 40 other genera attributed to 

 Hiibner on such authority as Syst. Alph. Verz., Index, Sammlung, exclu- 

 sive of a host based upon the coitus of the Verzeichniss bekannter 

 Schmetterlinge, and these one and all will be found to bear examination 

 no better than the so-called genera from the Tentamen and Franck's 

 Catalogue. They all lack the essential qualities of genera, being taken 



