THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 117 



petent lepidopterists, by hoping that he " has done something towards 

 introducing some degree of fixity, logic and precision in the generic 

 nomenclature." It strikes me rather that "something has been done " in 

 the direction of chaos. And when I consider the mischief caused by the 

 manufacture of spurious genera, and the excessive multiplication of genera 

 on characters almost too trivial to be specific, and the wholesale creation 

 of genera by mere enumeration of species, or by the mention of a single 

 species only as type, which has of late prevailed, I do not hesitate to say 

 that it would have been better to-day for this science had not a new genus 

 been promulgated these last fifteen years. Nearly the whole movement, 

 in this country at least, during this period, has been based in error, and 

 very few indeed of the genera will bear examination. 



There is but one remedy for this state of things, and fortunately, it is 

 simple. Let each genus created since the date when the Rules of the 

 British Association were adopted, viz., 1842, be tried by those Rules, and 

 those found wanting be rejected, no matter who made them. For genera 

 before 1842, as between two names in use, the prior right should belong 

 to the first named. But no name then in use should give way to an obsolete 

 or rejected name, even though the latter be of prior date. And next, let 

 each genus be called by the name of its real, not reputed, author. A genus 

 will then stand on its own merits and we shall see but little more of this 

 unseemly and reckless genus making. I hope to see the adoption cf 

 Rules to this effect by the Entomological section of the Am. Association 

 at its next meeting, and this will be the first step of real progress in 

 reforming the nomenclature. But the Rules already binding disposes of 

 a very large percentage of the generic names brought forward in the 

 Historical Sketch. Certainly of 400 or more taken from the Tentamen 

 and the various works of Hiibner, most especially from this most foolish 

 work, the Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetterlinge. 



To show that I do not stand alone in condemnation of Hiibner as an 

 authority for genera, I will give in conclusion the language of certain 

 lepidopterists, facile principes, whose opinions on this subject are entitled 

 to consideration. 



Dr. A. Speyer, Ent. Zeit. Stett. 1875, a ^ ter stating that he had never 

 seen the Tentamen and therefore could not pass judgment upon its names, 

 thus says of the Verz. bek. Schmett. : "It passes for an imdispuied 

 principle that other rights are needed to introduce a new species than tnerely 

 giving it a Jiame. It must be accompa7iied by a description or a drawing 



