NO. 4 OPINIONS ()l TO 97 19 



OPINION 97 



Did Hl'j;nkr's Tkntamkn, 1806. CRi-:A'rK l\IoNOT^■I'l{; Gi.nI'.ka? 



Summary. — Hiibnei's Tentamen, 1806, was obviously prepared essentially 

 as a manifolded manuscript, or as a proof sheet (cf. Opinion 87), for examina- 

 tion and opinion by a restricted group of experts, /. c, in Lcl^idoptcra, and not 

 for general distribution as a record in Zoology. Accordingly, the conclusion 

 that it was published in 1806 is subject to debate. Even if the premise be 

 admitted that it was published in 1806, the point is debatable whether the 

 contained binomials should be construed as generic plus specific names. Even 

 if it be admitted that the binomials represent combinations of generic plus 

 specific names, they are essentially iwmiiia iiiida (as of the date in question) 

 since authors who do not possess esoteric information in regard to them are 

 unable definitely to interpret them without reference to later literature. If 

 published with more definite data at later dates, these names have their 

 status in regard to availability as of their date of such republication. 



Statement of case. — Dr. J. iMcDnnnough, Entomological Branch, 

 Department of Agriculture, ( )tta\va, Canada, has submitted to the 

 Commission the question : Did Hiibner's Tentamen, 1806, create 

 monotypical and valid genera? As the validity of the units in question 

 is a zoological, not a nomenclatorial problem, the Secretary modifies 

 the question to read: Did Hiibner's Tentamen, 1806, create mono- 

 typic genera?* Dr. McDunnough presented the following data : 



In the May number of the Entomologist's Record for 1919, the second instal- 

 ment of Baker and Diirrant's comparison of Jacol) Hiiliner's Tentamen and 

 Verzeichniss, elucidating his system of Lcpidoptcra, is prefaced by a few 

 remarks bj^ Ah". Bethune Baker, who strongly supports the view that the 

 Tentamen creates generic names perfectly valid for use by systematic workers. 



As my name is mentioned as one of those opposing the adoption of the 

 Tentamen terms as valid genera, perhaps a few brief words, explaining my 

 views more explicitly^ than I have heretofore done, may not he amiss. 



The question of the validity or non-validity of the so-called 'genera' of 

 the Tentamen has already been the subject of much controversy and no one 

 is more anxious than I am to arrive at a definite decision regarding this per- 

 plexing pamphlet. L'ntil this is done it will he impossible to introduce sta- 

 bility into the generic nomenclature of l.cpidoplera as, owing to the early 

 date of issue (1806), the Tentamen names, if accepted, will take priority over 

 numerous long established generic names. 



Since the publication of the lirief staliinent in the introductidU to Barnes 

 & McDunnough's Check List of North American Leiiidoptera, 1 have given 

 the matter considerable further study, and 1 am now perfectly willing to 

 agree with Mr. Baker that we must consider the Tentamen to have at least 

 been published and that it certainly will not be suflicieiit to discard the names 

 therein ])roposed as ineditcd. This, however, does not settle the matter to 



