﻿170 Journal New York Ent. Soc. [Voi. m. 



Clear when he gives Jaspidia as a synonym of Pcecilia, not clear when 

 he cites Heliophila as a synonym of Leucania. All these names must 

 be restored to Hiibner and their use in the Tentamen confers the inesti- 

 mable benefit that we are given their exact types. Hiibner, in the Ten- 

 tamen, does not seem to know of Schrank's Fauna Boica; in the Ver- 

 zeichniss he uses some of the names. 



It is, then, certain, that in 1816 Ochsenheinier adopts the Tentamen; 

 certain, that he says he received it long after his third volume, in 18 10, 

 was published. These are the two sure points. It is certain also, that 

 Hiibner makes the Tentamen the basis of the Verzeichniss; although he 

 changes the generic titles (coiti/s H.), he uses the higher divisions 

 {stirps H. ) of the Tentamen. Now the Verzeichniss is later than 1816, 

 from internal evidence, and we give therefore Ochsenheimer's fourth 

 volume the due priority (see Scudder's argument). I give, once for all, 

 1818 as the date of the Verzeichniss, in order to show this position of 

 the two works and to abate the query in citations and again because, 

 having given Ochsenheimer's fourth volume the pas, there is no other 

 work with which the Verzeichniss collides, even if we admit the full 

 dates of the signatures as assigned by Scudder. As to the Agrotidae 

 (see my Bremen list of 1895) it seems probable that the date of these 

 signatures may be earlier than Scudder supposes, say certainly 1822, as 

 compared with the Zutraege. It must be remembered that the law of 

 priority, at least as to genera, was then, as even now, loosely applied, 

 as compared wiih its use to species. Subjective notions are freely dis- 

 played by writers in dealing with genera, even nowadays, from Bois- 

 duval and Gueneeon. They consider themselves superior to Hiibner, 

 and some, in fact, to all creation. Now, holding these points fast, I 

 would propose to give Ochsenheimer's third volume the same priority 

 over the Tentamen that we give to his fourth over the Verzeichniss. I 

 would date the Tentamen 18 11. I prove the Tentamen thus wholly 

 by Ochsenheimer and take its date as being subsequent to 1810, when 

 Ochsenheimer says he received it. This also has the practical value 

 that we save all collision between Ochsenheimer's third volume and the 

 Tentamen, a collision which it is vitally necessary to avoid, in view of the 

 nomenclature in use, the "language idea." We must do it to save 

 Saturnia under Ochsenheimer's restriction ; this is, of itself, sufficient ; 

 for it is Ochsenheimer's restrictions of Schrank, in the third volume, 

 181 o, which are important to preserve. If thereby an inaccuracy is 

 committed, it is one owing to Hiibner's peculiar omission, and it is 

 condoned by the practical effect of avoiding the conflict between Hiib- 



