THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



The difference made between authors, to which I above alkide, as to 

 generic names, is, that catalogue names, to which no description is 

 appended, but under which the species are simply listed, are held to be 

 of less value. But we can always know what is meant by them, and all 

 that we seek in the present case is to find out an exact generic title for 

 any one species as an impersonal literary fact. In an opposite view no 

 criterion exists by which we can test the description. Almost all the 

 older descriptions, so far as matter is concerned, are waste paper. Take 

 for instance the cases of Walker and Hiibner. Walker's generic descrip- 

 tions in the Noctuidce contain statements out of which we can usually 

 make nothing. Take, for instance, that of Feltia. What is said would 

 cover almost any of the entire Noctuince. The synonyms made by 

 Walker would not and could not have been detected unless I, or some one 

 else, had inspected his type. Had any one told him that his Feltia ducens 

 was a specimen o{ Agrotis Jaculifera, Guen. { = subgothica of Authors 

 nee Haworth), Walker would have been obliged for the information, and 

 simply thrown his label and MS. into the waste paper basket, where both 

 rightly belonged. The real difference between Walker and Hiibner is, 

 that Walker says more and conveys little, while Hiibner says little and 

 conveys more. Practically we can never be at a loss for the proper use 

 of a single generic title published by Hiibner, so that under the law of 

 priority we can properly refer all of them, without, as is often the case 

 with Walker, first having to identify a badly described species. Where 

 both authors propose genera for known species, there is in reason no 

 ' difference to be made between them. Walker's diagnoses are generally 

 no better than no description at all ; not unfrequently are they positively 

 misleading. 



Leaving these two authors, we come to Ochsenheimer, and here the 

 fact presents itself that Ochsenheimer's names which did not meet the 

 adverse fate of Hubner's in the Tentamen, are also no better founded, 

 and are " catalogue names " without a description. What sort of a 

 description could Ochsenheimer indeed have given? So that several 

 names now in use and never doubted have the same original right as 

 Hiibner's Tentamen names. I think this fact ought to lend my argument 

 conclusive weight, added to the fact, proven by me, that Ochsenheimer 

 adopted Hiibner's names, and considered the Tentamen as properly 

 published and as of authority. Ochsenheimer apologizes, in fact, for not 

 having adopted more of Hiibner's titles, because the sheet of the Tenia- 



