118 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



ivhich shall make it recognizable. This same principle is carried out no less 

 i?i regard to generic names. They first receive their authority from the sub- 

 joined sufficient characterization. We may give the most liberal inter- 

 pretation to this demand, and indeed must do so, especially with regard 

 to the earlier authors. One may perhaps go so far as to regard a genus 

 as sufficiently characterized by the species correctly placed beneath it. 

 But hardly any one could assert that the great majority of Hiibner' s genera 

 could be considered as scientifically established even with the most liberal ifiter- 

 pretation. The greater part of them are only described according to agree- 

 ment, often very superficial, in color and markings and perfectly insignificant 

 characteristics. The names in this catalogue have besides no more right to 

 stand than other so-called catalogue names — for instance, most specific names 

 in the Vienna Catalogue. They may be used in the erection of new 

 genera, since they are mostly well chosen, but by no means have a right to 

 supplant later but well founded genera." 



" This work (Hiibnef s Verzeichniss) had been systematically set aside 

 as an authority by most European entomologists because it was felt that 

 his so-called genera were mere guesses founded on facies alone — happy 

 guesses no doubt sometimes, but as frequently wrong as right — and wholly 

 without such definition as was held, even in his own day, to be required 

 to constitute a new genus The proper course to be taken is to re- 

 instate every name which of late years has been made to give place to one 

 of Hiibner s, and further to treat the Verzeichniss as a mere Catalogue 



which can never be quoted as an authority for genera Such old 



names as Chionobas, Agraulis, Eresia. Terias, Callidryas, Anthocharis, 

 with many more, are changed for others which most of us have never 

 heard of, and which generally are to be found in no other work than 



Hriibner's obsolete and worthless Catalogue As a matter of 



justice it may be maintained that "we should recognize the careful and 

 elaborate definition of a Doubleday or a Westwood, rather than the 

 childish guesses of a Hiibner, and should quote the former as the authority 

 for the genus, even should they out of courtesy have adopted the names of the 

 latter." A. R. Wallace, Ann. Address, before cited. 



" We cannot approve the names borrowed from the coitus of Hiibner 

 and applied by certain entomologists to their so-called genera. Hubner 

 had never seen in nature the sixth part of the Lepidoptera which he has 

 undertaken to group from their superficies. He has given no where a 

 positive character to his coitus, in which the species are often assorted by 

 chance. We could cite more than one instance where a variety is not 



