356 NOVITATES ZoOLOOICAE XXIV. 1917 



as a nomen nudum. However, I have carefully gone into this question ; the 

 first and therefore the proper quotation of Phalaena ckrysorrhoca Linn, is not, 

 as Mr. Oberthiir gives it, " Syst. Nat. edit. x. reform (Joannis Joachinius 

 Langius), vol. i. p. 502. No. 28 (1760)," but "Syst. Nat. edit. x. vol. i. p. 502. 

 No. 28 (1758)." Now, Linnaeus gives as his first quotation Baj. ins. 156. 

 No. 1. 15, which means Joannis Raius, Historia Insectorum, p. 156. P.M. 15. 

 No. 1 (1710), where the perfect insect is described as follows: "Phalaena 

 media, alls niveis, cauda obtusa lanugine densa pulva obsita." This descrip- 

 tion might fit either of our two insects, but Raius adds a very long and 

 most careful description of the larva, which is too extensive to quote verbatim, 

 but the first sentence is decisive, " Lineae tres e coccineis sen rubris macuUs 

 compositac, una hinc inde in lateribus supra pedes, tertia in medio dorso, k 

 capite a caudam producuntur." The statement that the larva has three 

 scarlet lines, one situated above the feet on each side of the body, whereas the 

 "Browntail's" larva has no lateral red lines, clearly proves Raius to have 

 described the " GoldtailMoth '' and not the " Browntail Moth," so Linnaeus's 

 name chrysorrhoea must be restricted to the " Goldtail." 



The proper name for the " Browntail Moth," therefore, must now engage 

 our attention. It had long been pointed out that as Esper had used the name 

 auriflua in 1785 for the " Browntail," Fabricius' name auriflua (Mant. Ins. vol. 

 ii. p. 125. No. 145 (1785)) could not be employed for the "Goldtail Moth," and 

 that Fuessly's name similis {Verz. d. i bekannt. Schnett. p. 35. No. 662 (1775)) 

 must be used for that species. Now, however, I think I have proved that the 

 " Goldtail Moth " must stand as Euproctis chrysorrhoea (Linn.), and at first 

 sight it would appear that Esper's name of auriflua {Schmett. vol. iii. p. 207. 

 pi. 39. f. 6 (1785)) must be applied to the " Browntail Moth," but, unfortunately, 

 the name auriflua was applied to the "Goldtail Moth" in 1776 by Schifier- 

 miiller and Denis {Syst. Verz. Schmett. Wien, p. 52. No. 4). The only other name 

 clearly applicable to the " Bro\ratail Moth " is Phalaena phaeorrhoea Donovan 

 [Nat. Hist. Brit. Ins. vol. xvi. p. 39. pi. 555 (1813)). Therefore the "Browntail 

 Moth " must stand as Nygmia phaeorrhoea phaeorrhoea (Don.). 



The fact that we have proved that the name chrysorrhoea Linn, belongs to 

 the " Goldtail Moth " carries with it some generic changes as well as specific. 

 We see that auriflua Schiff. and Den. applies to the " Goldtail," but the type 

 of the genus Euproctis Hiibner is given by him as auriflua Schiff., and I found 

 on reference to Hubner's own copy of Schiffermiiller and Denis's Systematisches 

 Verzeichniss der Schmettenlinge der Wiener Gegend evidence to prove this. This 

 name Euproctis (Hiibner, Verzeichnis bekannten Schmetterlinge, p. 159. Coitus 2 

 (1827)), and which ante-dates Porthesia (Stephens, Illustrations of British In.secis, 

 HousteUata, vol. ii. p. 65 (1828), is unfortunately also antedated by Germar's 

 name Arctornis {Syst. Gloss. Prod. sist. Bomb. 1811, p. 18), which therefore must 

 be used for the " Goldtail " chrysorrhoea Linn., so that we have to seek the oldest 

 generic name for the " Browntail." This would appear to be Artaxa (Walker, 

 List of the Specimens of Lepidopierous Insects in the Collection of the British 

 Museum, p. 794, genus 7 (1855)), but Hiibners name Nygmia is 23 years older. 

 \_ I may here add that not only does Rajus's description of the larva prove Linnaeus 

 to have designated the "Goldtail Moth" and not the " Browntail" by the 

 name chrysorrhoea, but Linnaeus's own mention of the larva, " Larva nodosa, 

 pilosa, nigra, rnbro Uneata," curs«ry as it is, also })rovcs this to be the case] 



