134 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



"considers it of no importance." That Hiibner did consider it of 

 importance is shown by his having built the later Verzeichniss upon it. 

 We shall find by careful study that Hiibner was a most consistent Ento- 

 mologist, and the criticism which pronounces him as vacillatory to be 

 worthless. So much is to be plainly gathered from his works themselves. 



And, after all, after four years 1 time Ochsenheimer does get the Tenta- 

 men, and in his fourth volume, 1816, speaks of it in a manner which 

 shows a desire to adopt what he could of it. His language is both friendly 

 and appreciative, and in his list he quotes it in the synonymy and therein 

 adopts certain of the genera on the authority of the Tentamen, as 

 " Cosmia" " Xylena," " Agrotis" " Graphiphora," etc. On the whole he 

 adopts more than he rejects, and where he rejects we are given no reason 

 for the discrimination (e. g. Heiiophila). But now we can see the value 

 of Mr. W. H. Edwards as a critic. He makes Ochsenheimer to say : 

 " This sheet I saw only long after the printing of my 3rd Vol. 7i>as done,'' 

 and comes to a full stop. But Ochsenheimer conies to no full stop ! No, 

 he goes on, after a comma, therefore I could not earlier hare adopted any- 

 thing out of it * So that Ochsenheimer apologises for an unavoidable 

 neglect and in his fourth volume does Hiibner a tardy but not altogether 

 inadequate justice. For the names above cited, and others afterwards 

 credited by Ochsenheimer's followers to himself, are taken by Ochsen- 

 heimer from the Tentamen and credited to Hiibner by Ochsenheimer 

 himself. And the criticism that pronounces Ochsenheimer the chief 

 Lepidopterologist of his day we cannot accept. Ochsenheimer was, at 

 best, provincial, and from the nature of his work could not be otherwise. 

 He is not to be compared to Hubner for grasp of his subject. His 

 follower, Treitschke, is still narrower and on him and the school to which 

 he belonged falls the blame for having appropriated, misapplied and 

 ignored the work of Hubner. 



A final argument of Dr. Hagen's, that the booksellers of the time did 

 not advertise the Tentamen, may be dismissed with the remark that it 

 certainly was published as proved by Ochsenheimer in 18 10, and the 

 question, whether the failure to catalogue a work by a bookseller is 

 sufficient to cancel its publication ? 



I conclude that if we wish to follow Ochsenheimer we must adopt 

 the Tentamen. I draw attention to the fact that Ochsenheimer's genera 



* (laker Konnte ich fruher nichts davon aufnehmen, 4, viii. 



