﻿168 Journal New York. Ent. Soc. [Voi. in. 



SCHRANK'S GENERA. 



By A. Radcliffe Grote, A. M. 



Before discussing Schrank's genera, mainly those referrable to the 

 Agrotidce, I wish to state the case of the Tentamen and give the date 

 which we may accord to it. The Tentamen is of the utmost value to 

 the nomenclator. Alone by this sheet can we trace the origin of certain 

 generic names now in use and fix their types. Such are : Diphthera, 

 Folia, Agrotis, Pliisia, Brephos and others. The type, for instance, of 

 Agrotis is segetiim, and in this sense the term is now used, after I had 

 pointed out the true type; but for this type we are indebted to the Ten- 

 tamen. From the mixed character of Ochsenheimer's genera and sub- 

 sequent authorities, including Boisduval, it would be difficult to find the 

 type of Agrotis, and perhaps, without the Tentamen, our researches 

 might lead us wide away. All this disturbance the Tentamen saves us, 

 and its "catalogue genera" are besides the first attempt to arrange the 

 Order in the spirit of modern enquiry. It is the same with Pliisia ; the 

 Tentamen gives us the name and the type : chrysitis, and thus fixes for 

 us the group to which the name is referable. This genus is next on the 

 list for disintegration. We have in it at least two types which classifi- 

 cators must hold fast and be thankful for : chrysitis and gamma. When 

 we see how gladly, upon the same principle of priority, Prof. J. B. Smith 

 sweeps away generic titles, held for twenty-five years in America, to re- 

 instate names of Walker's, whose correct application is, from the state 

 of the case, doubtful, and even sometimes impossible, we feel some 

 amazement at the prejudice against Hiibner's titles. It may have some- 

 what abated since I show that Ochsenheimer's titles are also "catalogue 

 names" in part, and equally without diagnosis. 



The Tentamen is undated. Were it dated the discussion would be 

 avoided. The date fixed by Mr. Scudder, iSo6, remains, and without 

 any argument to overturn it having been published to my knowledge. 

 However, Mr. Dyar uses " 1810?" I do not think anything is gained, 

 but rather much lost, in stability by quoting dates with a query. These 

 must be ascertained as near as possible and agreed upon. This date of 

 Mr. Scudder's is therefore probable, but it is not certain. Certainty, as 

 to the Tentamen, is only given us by Ochsenheimer, in his fourth vol- 

 ume (18 1 6); I mean that certainty which convinces anyone endowed 

 with reasoning faculties who is willing to use them. [The fact is that 

 the opponents of Hiibner adopt, without scruple, synonymy, which is 



