Sept , 1904.] Proceedings of the Society. 191 



Professor F. M. Webster have some remarks on this subject. Dr. 

 Smith adds nothing in the way of positive suggestion, though he reit- 

 erates his objection to the method of first species without giving any 

 reasons. We would only remark that if Dr. Smith had taken the 

 trouble to read his Systema Naturee he would not have made the inac- 

 curate statement that Linnaeus divided the Lepidoptera into Papilio, 

 Sphinx, Bombyx, Noctita, etc. Linnaeus divided the Lepidoptera into 

 three genera only, Papilio, Sphinx and PiialcEua. The other terms 

 are subgeneric, and while we hold that they should probably be raised 

 to generic value, we would note that the action of the students of the 

 butterflies is inconsistent with that of students of the moths. Linnaeus' 

 Papilio has subgeneric divisions as well as P/ialcena, which have not 

 been, but should be used. 



Professor Webster writes at some length. Eliminating a good deal 

 of conversational matter and some irrelevant remarks of a facetious 

 nature, his contention seems to be that corrections of nomenclature 

 should not be accepted at once, but await verification. This appeals 

 to us as a sensible suggestion. The question arises as to what consti- 

 tutes verification and how long must these proposed corrections wait. 

 This may be settled by the use of the latest catalogue. It is custom- 

 ary, in all countries where active entomological work is going on, to 

 issue a standard catalogue or list at intervals, and we advise entomol- 

 ogists to use the names given in the latest catalogue till the new one 

 appears. In America, Grote's list of 1882 was used for ten years. 

 Smith's of 1 891 replaced it, and was lately superceded by Bulletin 52, 

 U. S. National Museum. Let all working entomologists follow this 

 for the next ten years and not trouble themselves about changes, 

 which can, of course, be proposed in the journals, and wait to ripen 

 for the next general revision of the list. We refer to the ordinary use 

 of names, more especially in economic work, and do not wish to be 

 understood to say that actual errors in the synonymy of species should 

 be perpetuated. Thus the boll worm may continue to be called 

 Heliotliis armiger instead of CJiloridia obscura, since the change de- 

 pends upon a recent idea of generic limitation combined with the 

 resurrection of an old specific name ; but Epeiis faxonii showXd not be 

 retained as a synonym of E. truncataria * as this erroneous synonymy 

 was due only to a clerical error in marking the manuscript for the 

 printer. 



* See E. J. Smith, Ento. News, xv, 221, 1904. 



