﻿Dec. 1895] Grote. Schrank's Genera. 1(59 



twenty times as disturbing and doubtful.] Ochsenheimer gives us this 

 certainty, and, in my preface to the 2d part of the Buffalo Check List, 

 I give Ochsenheimer's words, published in 181 6, that the Tentamen only 

 came into tliis writer's hands long after his third volume (18 10) was 

 printed, therefore he could not have used anything out of the Tentamen 

 at an earlier date (than 1816.) And in 1816 Ochsenheimer uses the 

 Tentamen names, and this settles the fact that the Tentamen was known 

 in 1 8 16 and used and useful. The fact is further settled that Ochsen- 

 heimer did not have the Tentamen in 18 10. Now, when did he get it? 

 The words used by him: " daher konnte ich friiher nichts davon 

 aufnehmen,'" would seem to imply that if he had received it earlier 

 (Jrueher), he would have used it; /. e., in his third volume, 1810; and 

 this construction favors Scudder's date of 1806. In fact, the whole of 

 Ochsenheimer's remarks, p. viii, vol. iv, produce the effect that 

 Ochsenheimer favorably considered the Tentamen; as a whole, re- 

 garded it as an equal authority, and, had he thought it necessary, might 

 have ascertained and given its exact date. Whether he knew it or not 

 does not appear. This he does not do, but, in the course of his vol- 

 ume, he uses in the groups he there catalogues the following names, 

 crediting Hlibner; Ochsenheimer gives {supra) the full title of the Ten- 

 tamen, so that there is no doubt of his citing this publication. Lemoni- 

 ades (for or under Meliiica~), Dryades (for or under Argynnis), Lim- 

 nades {Eiiploea~), Hamadryades {Vanessa), Najades Limenitls, Pota- 

 mides {Apatura), Oreades {Hipparchia), Rustici {Lyccena), Principes 

 {Papilio), Mancipia {Pontia'), Urbani {Hesperia). So much for the 

 butterflies. Ochsenheimer uses the plural names out of the Tentamen 

 in the synonymy, the names formed out of the generic title; and hence 

 for assemblages, as I understand Hiibner, who uses in the A^erzeichniss 

 these very names in this sense as higher than genera. It makes no dif- 

 ference that Ochsenheimer makes them synonyms; what is in the syno- 

 nymy may one day obtain. The point is the recognition of the Tenta- 

 men. In the Agrotidaj and Apatelidi^j Ochsenheimer cites Hiibner, 

 and gives priority to the following names: Diphthera (p. 63), Agrotis 

 (p. 66), Graphiphora (p. 68), Miselia (j^. 72), Fo/ia (p. 75), Xanthia 

 (p. 82), Cosmia (p. 84), Xylina (p. 85), Plusia (p. 89), Heliothis 

 (p 91), Anthophila (p. 93), Brephos (p. 96), Euclidia (p. 96). Now 

 I would like to know what the critics have to say to this recognition of 

 the Tentamen ? In other cases in these families Ochsenheimer con- 

 scientiously cites the Tentamen names, but refers them to the syno- 

 nymy. It is clear why he does so in some cases, not clear in others. 



