38 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



PREPTOS, TAMPHANA AND AROTROS — A REVIEW. 



In the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London for 

 1892, Mr. W. Schaus describes as new 180 species of " Bombycid " 

 moths from Mexico and various parts of South America, with three 

 "new genera." Of these, one is located in the Lasiocampidae and 

 two in the Bombycid?e. All these generic descriptions are utterly 

 inadequate, and the question should be raised seriously whether 

 names founded on such descriptions should be recognized. We are 

 accustomed to believe that the classification of Herrich-Schaffer is still 

 used by lepidopterists, at least in its fundamental features ; but in 

 these descriptions the word " vein " does not appear. The descrip- 

 tion of the Lasiocampid is the longest of the three, yet the author 

 gives but eight characters by which to identify his genus. Five of 

 these are common to nearly all the genera of the family ; two others 

 appear in several genera already well known, and the genus must be 

 distinguished from the one hundred and forty odd genera of Lasi- 



ocampidae already catalogued, by the female having an expanse of 

 wing of 95 mm., and a short abdomen, " not extending beyond the 

 secondaries ! " 



Surely it is time to call a halt. Some standard of generic 

 description must be adopted, or else what is the use of multiplicating 

 so-called "descriptions" that do not describe. Better to save puzzling 

 over meaningless sentences, and simply say: — "New genus; type in 

 my collection." 



It would seem that the least that could be expected of an 

 author was to tell how the venation differed from the nearest ally of 

 the " new genus," the same being already described. A full descrip- 

 tion of the venation, or a figure, would be preferable. Even a 

 complete knowledge of the wing structure is not sufficient to place a 

 genus ; but it is among the essentials. 



I think all who have had anything to do with generic characters 

 (which, unfortunately, does not seem to be a majority of lepidop- 

 terists!) will agree with me that the practices to which I am referring 

 are reprehensible, and deserving of a most vigorous protest. 



Harrison G. Dyar. 



