22, SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 'J }^ 



3. The citation of a known species as th? tj'pe of a new genus is a much 

 better definition and guide than, for instance, Hiibner's descriptions in the 

 Verzeichniss, the names of which are generally accepted as valid [available. — ■ 

 C. W. S.] in spite of the futility of these so-called descriptions. With re- 

 gard to the Tentamen, we turn to Hiibner's figure and can ascertain what 

 species was intended, and for ourselves test whether the genus be valid or not. 



4. No one will be disposed to doubt the necessity for full definition of all 

 genera published after the acceptance of the British Association Rules, but 

 it was impossible for authors who lived and died before these rules were 

 made known to act upon them. The nomina iiuda published before 1842 

 (Brit. Assoc.) stood upon an entirely different footing from those published 

 after that date (cf. Zool. Congr. 1898). 



5. If the Tentamen names are rejected, many other names (?". c.. many of 

 Ochsenheimer's and Guenee's, which are in general use, but have no more 

 claim to recognition than have Hiibner's) must be discarded, and the con- 

 fusion would be terrible. 



In favor of the acceptance of the Tentamen are: C. T. Bethune Baker 

 (Leamington Spa), T. H. Durant (London), J. de Joinnis (Paris), R. Puen- 

 geler (Aaxhen), N. D. Riley (London), H. Stichel (Berlin). 



II. Arguments against the acceptance of tlie Tentanien names. — i. The 

 Tentamen was probably sent only to some of the subscribers to Hiibner's 

 Samml. Europ. Schmett., which would account for the number of known 

 copies being so very small. Hiibner, in Verzeichniss in 1818, states that he 

 conceived the idea of a classification of the Lepldoptera, but that, before he 

 would adopt it himself, he had communicated the plan of it to experts for 

 examination and criticism. He was his own publisher, and the quarto sheet 

 giving th^ skeleton of a tentative classification appears to be in the nature of 

 a publisher's prospectus, which is not a publication valid for nomenclatorial 

 purposes. Hiibner nevertheless adopted the plan for the plates of Vol. i of 

 Samml. Exot. Schmett., interpolating here a third name between stirpes and 

 species. Nereis ftilva Polymnia. In the letter-press to this Vol. i and in all 

 his other publications he rejected the Tentamen names, employing them in 

 the plural form for higher divisions only, not for genera. 



2. The stirpes in the Tentamen are without descriptions and references. 

 Though under each stirps one species is quoted (Rusticus Argus- — Prinecps 

 Machaon — ), no author is given. The majority of these specific names oc- 

 curred among Lepidoptera only once before 1808, and we assume that such 

 specific names in the Tentamen refer to those known species and not to other 

 species. However, 17 of the names had been applied before 1806 to two, 

 three, or four species (proserpina, maturna, rnalvae, fabius, euliciforniis, 

 carpini, parthcnias, lunaria, auriftua, affinis, aprilina, flai'ieincta, fulvago, lyth- 

 oxyiea, umbratica, barhalis, bombycalis) . In these cases again we may assume 

 that Hiibner meant the species he had figured before 1806. But which of 

 the two fabius tlicn known did he mean with Consul Fabius, not figured by 

 him? What is his Elopliila Limnalis.' Is Limualis a new name or is it (like 

 Maeniata for Moeniata) a misprint for Limbalis or for LoiDuilis, both 

 figured before? What is Phyllonorycter Rajclla? Did he mean Rajella Linn., 

 or the very dififerent Rahella Hiibn.? 



Rigorously construed, the absence of descriptions, references and authors 

 leaves all the names open to conjecture. 



