Mi THh i.\>MM\N KNTOMOMIOIKT. 



Keutzitii^ariii, Packard, is thus preoccupied, he renames ii attruaria, 

 Pearsall. 



Hut (ist) the mere mention of the fact that a specimen and description 

 under a certain name had been sent to Packard for publication, does not 

 constitute Kuetzingi anything more than a nomen nudum.* 



(2nd) If it did, it cannot take precedence of Keutzin^aria, because 

 the Monograph, so far as I can learn, was published be/ore the Canadian 

 Kntomologist for June came out. I am not absolutely sure of these 

 dates, both were in June, 1876, but I have no doubt they can be definitely 

 established. 



(3rd) (irolc evidently considered Packard's description and b uh 

 figures as representing his species, otherwise there would have been no 

 ground for protesting. He considered Keutzingaria and Kuetzingizs pure 

 synonyms. 



(4th) Grote, by ad«>pting Packard's name in his list of 1882, shows 

 that he did not look upon his note (Can. Ent., \'\\\. wz) as having 

 precedence over the .Monograph. 



(5lh) Even if Mr. Pearsall is right in recognizing the name Kuetziugi, 

 and in limiting it to the form nigrescwia, it seems to me that A'eu/zingiirta, 

 i'ackard, would be (piite sufiicicntly different to be retained, and attruaria 

 would still be unnecessary. 



In my opinion, therefore, the names will stand as follows : 



1876, Plagodis Keutzingaria, Packard. 



1876, Eurymcnc Kueizingi, Grote, nomen nudum. 



1907, - Plagodis attruria, Pearsall. 

 1887, Plagodis nigrescaria, Hulst. 



1907, Plagodis Kuctzingi, Pears-ill, noii (^iroic. 



The contention in the above argument is, that the name Keutzingarta 

 in the .Monograjjh was published before the name Kuctzingi apptareJ in the 

 Canahian En h>moi.im.isi', but that it this was not the case, A'ue/zi/igi was 

 never properly described, and is therefore only nomen nudum, abandoned 

 by the author himself, and cannot now be used, so that in any case the 

 name Keutzingaria nmst stand for one part of the s|)ccies figured by 

 Packard, and as Hulst was the first to note that two forms were mixed, 

 clearly his name nigrescaria must also be retained, 



"I notice that ihi" editors of llir Zoolo)fical Rocord lor 1876, in lisliii)^ the 

 new >|>ccic9 of l.opidopicra described dnrin>; ihe year, have iho entry : Plagiutix 

 Knilsint^iitin f (initf }/S. ), /'iicknnt, but pas.s over entirely (.irotCM A'ui'fsingi, 

 althoufifli they elsewhere allnde to his paper in the C.XNAniAN Kntomoi.OCIST, 



