1895.] ^-"'^ [Grote. 



the tj'pe, but see my remarks under Herminia, ■which expUxin tlie con- 

 fusion between the two species, barbalis and tentacularia {tentacularis). 

 Under this restriction of Polypogon, the later term Erpyzon Hiibn., 1806, 

 falls as a synonym. 



Hekminia. 



1809. Latreille, Oen. Crws. /««., Tome iv, 228 : " Eerminia barbalis La.ir., 

 Hist. nnt. des Crust, et des Insectes, tome xiv, 227 ; Crambus bar- 

 hatus (^, Or. tentacularis 9 5 Ilerm. rostralis Latr. ; Cr. rostratus 

 Fab.; Ilerm. proboscidalis ; Cr. proboseidens, ensatns Fab. — Pknl. 

 ericata Cram., (Jr. adspergillus Bosc, Coq., Uyblma sagitta Fab., 

 Phal. orosia Cram. Obs. Antennae ssepe ciliatse aut subpectinatae in 

 uno lexu infra incrassatse aut in medio dilatatse uninodosas." 

 From this it is only clear, that Latreille considered barbalis as the (^ 

 and tentacularia {tentacularis) as the 9 of the same species. Also that 

 he did not consider Hypena and several other genera, i.e. Sylectra, 

 Hyblaea, etc., as distinct. Only the general reputation of his work (pub- 

 lished in Paris) seems to have floated his term Herminia ; this has been 

 used later, by Lederer, Standinger, etc., and good authorities in the sense 

 that tentacularis was typical. 



The original citation for this genus is "Latreille, Hist. Nat. d. Crust, et 

 d. Insectes, T. xiv, Par. an xiii, 1805." This work is not in the library of 

 the university, and I cannot again consult it at the moment. But the 

 citation above, given by Latreille four years later, of his original work, 

 shows that "6ariaZ^« Latr.," of 1805, is explained to mean "barbntus (^, 

 tentacularis 9-" Mr. Smith gives: 1802. Latr., Gen. Crust, et Ins., iii, 

 413, et iv, 2281." I think this citation must have been copied ; Tome iii 

 contains Hymenoptera. It does not then follow that Mr. Smith has ex- 

 amined all the works catalogued by him ; although such examination is, 

 as Mr. Smith truly says, the basis of good work in any science, as tliis 

 implies a knowledge of what has been done in the past. But I think that 

 the works not examined by Mr. Smith might have been specially marked. 

 I do not know where "iii, 413," was obtained ; "iv, 2281," seems to be 

 an exaggeration of my citation as above, " iv, 228," and would argue the 

 existence of a rather voluminous work. 



Latreille's diagnosis, above given, must lead us to consider either bar- 

 balis or tentacularia as the type of the genus Herminia. I have proposed 

 to take tentacularia, because there is no apparent impediment to this 

 course, and it does not disturb the accepted Continental nomenclature. 

 The earlier Polypogon is founded on barbalis and tentacularia regarded as 

 distinct species ; Herminia is founded primarily on barbalis and tentacu- 

 laria regarded (incorrectly) as the same species. According to this view 

 Erpyzon Hiibn., and Pechipogon Lederer, nee Hiibner. are synonymous 

 with Polypogon Schrank ; a term which has been unaccountably 

 neglected. In the "Revision," Mr. Smith adopts my previously ex- 

 pressed opinion, that tentacularia is the type of Herminia. It is c^ear 



rUOC. AMER. PHILOS. SOC. XXXIV. 149. 3 B. PRINTED FEB. 5, 1896. 



