THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



is preoccupied" (Abh. Naturw. Ver. Brem., XIV., p. i of separate), and 

 again (1. c , p. 21): " The term Noctua^ used by authors for this section, 

 is, as I understand the matter, preoccupied in the Birds and, according to 

 the rules, cannot be used a second time in Zoology." Again no facts are 

 given, and again Mr. Dyar repeats. Can. Ent., XXVII., 225, " The name 

 Agrotidce is proposed for the customary Noctuidce, as the term Nodua is 

 preoccupied in Birds." Mr. Dyar thus seems to accept the change and 

 repeats, as a fact, Mr. Grote's positive statement that the name is pre- 

 occupied. It may be so ; these gentlemen may have information not 

 accessible to me, and in order to bring it out I state my own knowledge 

 as follows : — 



In Scudder's " Nomenclator " we find 



Noctua, Klein, Moll., 1753, 



Noctua, Fabr., Lep., 1,776, 



Noctua, Sav., Aves., 1809, 



Noctuge, Linn., Lep., 1758. 



In the Century Dictionary, that marvellous storehouse of terms, the 

 same order is observed : (a) an old genus of Mollusca, Klein, 1751 ; the 

 date here differing from Scudder ; (b) a genus in Lepidoptera, and (c) 

 a genus of Owls by Savigny in 1809. 



I cannot find in any dictionary of Ornithology any earlier use of the 

 term Noctua, though this of course does not prove that there is none. 



JS/octua, Klein, 1751 or 1753, is certainly the earliest use of the term; 

 but here we run up against the following : 



"Canon XII. — The Law of Priority begins to be operative at the 

 beginning of Zoological nomenclature." 



"Canon XIII. — Zoological nomenclature begins at 1758, the date 

 of the Xth edition of the ' Systema Naturae ' of Linnaeus." 



We find that the term Noduce was used for the Lepidoptera in the 

 very publication with wliich Zoological nomenclature begins, although 

 Nodua as a generic term in the order is to be credited to Fabricius. 



It is possible, of course, that some publications exist, which were 

 overlooked by the authorities cited by me ; but if this is so, Mr. Grote cer- 

 tainly owes it to Zoological Science at large to refer to them, and to give 

 the reasons for rejecting Nodua as a term " preoccupied in the Birds,' 



