20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



my mind and we are still faced with the question as to whether Hiibner 

 created what can be termed modern genera in the aforesaid work or not. 



It is a well-known fact that Hiibner did not employ the term 'genus' to 

 signify the category immediately above a species. The Hiibnerian ' coitus ' 

 as used in the Verzeichniss has been, however, generally accepted as typi- 

 fying the modern 'genus' and as fulfilling the requirements of the Inter- 

 national Code in respect to generic validity. Turning to the Tentamen, we 

 at once see from the title that Hiibner is not dealing with coiti but with stirpes 

 and that, in fact, the Tentamen is but the merest skeleton of a system which 

 was amplified ten years later in the Verzeichniss, where the stirpes of the 

 Tentamen are employed only in a plural sense [in the text, but in the singular 

 in the index. — C. W. S.] and correspond with our modern ideas of a sub- 

 family or even a family. The unfortunate fact remains that in the Tentamen 

 Hiibner, besides his plural usage, actually has employed the stirps name in 

 the singular in connection with a specific name. It must seem evident that 

 the intention was merely to cite a species considered by the author to be typi- 

 cal of each stirps and the usage of the term in the singular number was prob- 

 ably merely to conform to the rules of correct Latin [the paper is entirely in 

 Latin. — C. W. S.] ; one of the strongest arguments in favor of this view is 

 the fact that in the Verzeichniss each and every specific [107. — C. W. S.] 

 name used in the Tentamen is placed by Hiibner in a coitus not identical in 

 name with the term employed in the Tentamen (as would naturally be the 

 case if he had intended creating coiti in this pamphlet) but for which he 

 either uses a generic name created by one of the early writers (Fabricius, 

 Schrank, Ochsenheimer, etc.) or, failing this, actually proposes a new name. 



The vital question then is, briefly stated — did Hiibner by his employment 

 of a stirps name in the singular along with a valid specific name actually — 

 even if unintentionally — create a valid generic name? Common sense would 

 seem to tell us. No, but on the other hand there is nothing in the Interna- 

 tional Code which would definitely forbid the usage of these terms as genera 

 nor can I find any ruling under the Opinions rendered by the International 

 Commission which would cover this case. Under the Code the sole absolute 

 requirements for generic validity [availability. — C. W. S.] would appear to 

 be uninominality and association with a valid [valid? — C. W. S.] specific 

 name. 



I would, therefore, offer the suggestion that the decision be left to an 

 International Committee ; I, for one, would willingly abide by their ruling and 

 I am sure that most systematic workers in Lcpidoptcra would be glad to see 

 the end of a vexatious question which, while affecting considerably the 

 nomenclature of Lepidoptera, has, after all, no vital bearing on the larger 

 problem of the interrelationships of the various species. 



Discussion cy secretary. — The case now before the Commission 

 has for many years been the subject of earnest controversy. It has 

 been before the Commission for many months and has resulted in 

 voluminous correspondence. 



The Committee on Nomenclature of the Washington Entomologi- 

 cal Society has studied the case and reports to the Secretary as follows : 



In the minds of this Committee there is no doubt that Hiibner's Tentamen 

 is a publication and should therefore be treated as such. 



