132 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



to discuss the question of geographical distribution to any purpose or 

 advantage and to arrive at some nearer comprehension of the way in 

 which species may have differentiated. And it seems reasonable that we 

 should express the results of such comparison in our nomenclature. Not 

 expressing them, their record fends to become obliterated. So that in 

 this direction we find that Jacob Hubner in his work is more nearly up to 

 the requirements of to-day than are his critics. And it is only this serious 

 study of Entomology that relieves the whole subject from the charge of 

 childishness which we hear not unfrequently made against it, and which 

 we cannot well otherwise refute. To merely catalogue species of insects 

 is to bring the study of Entomology down to the level of an arrangement 

 of curiosities of any description. It needs some higher spirit to elevate 

 it and to relieve it from the imputation of aselessness. 



The second question with regard to Hubner and his works is whether 

 we are to recognize the right of his generic names, proposed so long ago, 

 to be used now for one or more of the species he included under them. 

 It is a question which must be answered in the affirmative under the law 

 of priority, since Hubner is post-Linnean, and wrote on genera from 

 1806 to 1828. 



But it is a question which is confused by technical objections against 

 the form and style of Hiibner's generic definitions. Hubner has published 

 two works which we shall here consider (omitting the question as to 

 "Franck's Catalogue' for the time), viz., the Tentamen and the Ver- 

 zeichniss. The first is a single leaf and contains a sketch of a system 

 of classification in which a number of generic names are proposed and 

 defined by the enumeration of a single known and named species under 

 each. The second is an attempt to classify all the known Lepidoptera 

 of the world under genera very briefly and superficially described. 



To the acceptance of these works and the adoption of the generic 

 names therein contained, comes now Mr. W. H. Edwards in the pages 

 of the Canadian Entomologist in opposition, and brings with him Dr. 

 Hagen as an ally and one upon whom he depends as full of a knowledge 

 of the literature on the subject. The attack in the March number is 

 mainly on the Tentamen, and we will see what it consists in. 



There is mainly brought forward, not without ingenuity, the plea that 



Hubner never intended that the Tentamen should be adopted. The 



argument is sustained in two ways. First by the language of the Tenta- 



men ; second by the statement that it was not known to contemporary 



vriters on its subject. 



