Grote.] 4d0 [Dec. 6, 



clature that a generic title, defined by a description, cannot be applied to 

 a species which this definition absolutely contradicts. I, therefore, in 

 reason and under the rules reject Hormisa as applied to Lilognatha and 

 refer it as a synonym of Epizeuxis. I can look with confidence that my 

 action will be sanctioned by lepidopterists both in America and Europe. 

 It appears to me without doubt correct ; since the application of a generic 

 title must not be contradicted by the generic definition. 



While the generic title, Hormisa, is thus clearly to be rejected, I am in- 

 clined to adopt ahsorptalis for the species. The description is incomplete 

 and contradicts nubilifascia in the "denticulated" interior line ; in my 

 species it is wanting usually, when present tine and even. The reniform 

 cannot be described as "brown, punctiform ;" it is represented by two 

 black dots merely. The descriptions of the lines on secondaries do not 

 agree with nubilifascia. Agreement is shown in the description of the ex- 

 terior and submarginal lines on fore wings, in the fact that the upper sur- 

 face is given as paler than under. No mention is made of the discal dots. 

 It is not impossible that Mr. Smith has made some "unexplainable " mis- 

 take, arising from a subjective desire to break down my names, as in the 

 case of idmusalii. But I content myself here with rehabilitating my gen- 

 eric title and I leave the matter of the species to the decision of later wri- 

 ters who will judge the whole case without feeling. It seems to me prob- 

 able that Walker, after describing his genus from a specimen of Epizeuxis, 

 finally removed this type, but not before it was seen by Grote and Robin- 

 son in 1867, and that the species absorptalis was really described by him 

 under a generic diagnosis previously and disconnectedly drawn up.* His 

 persistent use of Hormisa for other species of Epizeuxis would be thus ex- 

 plained. In 1867, there was apparently much more mixing of species un- 

 der one name than now comes out after Mr. Butler has sortedf the ineects 

 over, and Mr. Smith has "taken" them for Walker's "types." 



In 1867, I pointed out the fact to Mr. Walker, standing with him over 

 the drawers, which he was still "arranging," that in a number of in- 

 stances he had more than one species under a title, and he nervously ad- 

 mitted the fact. I was then but a young tyro and my knowledge of our 

 species was slight. I had previously sent Mr. Walker at least one hundred' 

 species for comparison, and I have his " determinations " yet, which even 

 at the time, in 1863-4, surprised me and set me thinking. Walker and 

 Guenee, I believe neither of them, furthered the work of American 

 lepidopterists by their descripiional publications. 



* Consult the account of Walker's methods of working, Cat., 1893, p. 7. This covers the 

 case of Hormisa exactly. European lepidopterists would never be agreed to ai cept a 

 genus founded on Epizeuxis lumula for derivalis. 



tSec Cat.,p.S, where Mr. Butler has marked specimens which he "considers" as 

 Walker's types. 



