1895.] 429 [Grote. 



my II. citata, referring the latter as a synonym. On page 108 of the 

 Revision Mr. Smith says, in contradiction : " In my studies in the British 

 Museum 1 found a specimen which I took as the \.j^q o^ idceusnlis Wallier, 

 and which I considered the same as H. citata Grote, and so referred it in my 

 catalogue. Mr. Butler writes, later, that this is a mistake and that Walker's 

 species is not even a Hypena. The description somewhat bears out Mr. 

 Butler's statement and I have apparently made some mistake, though 

 how I cannot conceive." The italics are mine and render any further 

 comment superfluous, since the whole matter proves my assertion, that 

 the identifications were made on occasion, perhaps generally, without ref- 

 erence to the descriptions in the Lists. Since Mr Smith admonishes me 

 " that Walker's identifications, even of his own species, are entirely un- 

 trustworthy," and since Walker's "types" have no type labels and his 

 peculiar methods of describing have been disclosed by Mr. Smith and Mr. 

 Butler, since, finally, these "types" have been shifted by a non-specialist in 

 the group and are no longer as Walker left them, there is ground for re- 

 jecting Mr. Smith's identifications, supported by the fact, that Mr. Smith 

 admits two of them in this group to be erroneous. But what we need is a 

 working nomenclature, and I would not impede the attainment of this 

 result by needless opposition, having been one of the earliest working 

 lepidopterists to hold that Walker's badly founded names should be ac- 

 cepted as if properly founded. Still we should not per force apply his 

 badly founded names merely to rid our lists of unidentified descriptions. 

 In referring Homoptera herminioides to mmula, in this subfamily, Mr. 

 Smith has laid himself open to the charge. 



I give now my reasons in full for rejecting " Hormisa " as used by Smith. 

 First I copy the description from the B. M. Lists : " Hormisa (xvi, 74). 

 Male. Body slender. Frontal tuft prominent, acute. Proboscis very short. 

 Palpi long, slender, compressed, slightly pilose, obliquely ascending, iJiird 

 joint lanceolate, less than half the length of the body, Antennfe slightly 

 pectinated, about half the length of the body. Thorax squamous with 

 closely applied liairs. Abdomen extending rather beyond the hind wings. 

 Legs slender, bare ; hind tibiae with long spurs. Wings moderately broad. 

 Fore wings rectangular at tips, rather oblique and hardly convex along the 

 exterior border." 



From this description it is certain that it absolutely contradicts Litog- 

 natha in every essential point given and here italicized by me. Litognatha 

 has lengthily pectinated antennae, with specialized nodose processes at 

 basal third. The legs in male are not bare, but very remarkably tufted 

 in the male, which sex Walker describes (see my figure and original de- 

 scription) ; the last joint of the palpi is not "lanceolate ;" the thorax is not 

 clothed with " closely applied hairs;" the fore wings are not "rectangu- 

 lar at tips," but pointed. But, in each and all of the above statements, 

 the diagnosis agrees with Epizeuxis cemula or americalis, and this in exactly 

 the points in wJiich it contradicts Litognatha, It is certain that Walker 

 drew it up on a specimen of Epizeuxis. It is a rule of zoological nomen- 



