NO. 4 OPINIONS c)i TO gj 23 



3. The combination of two words Princrfs Machaon can in no way be inter- 

 preted as a definition of the genus Prbiccps. The combination can mean tliat 

 the new genus Priiiccps contains only one species, machaon, or all the species 

 similar to machaon, or all the butterflies not placed in other oenera. In 1806 

 the recipient of a copy of the Tentamen could not know whether Hiibner 

 wished him to put the one or the other construction on the naked names. 

 Nobody in 1806, except Hiibner himself, could know in which stirpes of the 

 Tentamen to place the larger proportion of the species then already well 

 known. There is not the slightest indication where to place, for instance, 

 the numerous Erycinids then already figured. The Tentamen was a mere 

 skeleton intended to be filled in later, but abandoned by its author. 



The citation of a species is not a definition of a genus ; a higher category 

 is not defined by one lower category. [Cf., however, Opinion i. — C. W. S.] 



4. Linnaeus clearly stated the rules of nomenclature in the introduction to 

 Syst. Nat. X, 1758 [Philos. botan., 1753.— C. W. S.]. He demanded that the 

 various systematic concepts be defined by stating the differences. 



5. If the Tentamen names are adopted no good will be served, some familiar 

 names, such as Abraxas, will be superseded, other lists of naked names will 

 become valid publications, and numerous useless changes and infinite chaos 

 will result. 



Against the acceptance of the Tentamen names are: G. J. Arrow (London), 

 Chr. Aurivillius (Stockholm), E. E. Austen (London), K. G. Blair (London), 

 E. L. Bouvier (Paris), G. C. Champion (Woking), H. Eltringham (Oxford), 

 A. Handlirsch (Wien), C. G. Gahan (London), K'. Enderlein (Berlin). M. 

 Hering (Berlin), K. Holdhaus (Wien), O. Meissner (Potsdam), F. Reyer 

 (Saarbruecken), E. Meyrick (Marlborough), H. Rebel (Wien), Rothschild 

 (Tring), L. B. Prout (London), S. Schenkling (Berlin), P. Schulse (Berlin), 

 W. H. Tarns (London), H. Zerny (Wien). 



E. L. Bouvier, R. Verity, and J. Waterston would be in favor of retaining 

 such names as are in general use, which could be done by placing them liy 

 common consent on the List of Nomina Conscrz'aiida. 



K. M. C. Heller (Dresden) is not quite sure that the Tentamen can be 

 regarded as a publication. 



Messrs. Enderlein, Hering, and Hesse (Berlin) are against the reintro- 

 duction of names which have been out of use for a period of (say) 50 years. 



The Secretary has found a division of opinion among American 

 entomijlogists. Ijut nearly or practically .all of the North American 

 workers in Lcpiduptcra seem to be cHstinctiy of the opinion that the 

 names in question are availa1>le under the Code ; and the following 

 summary by h^oster H. Ilenjamin seems to be a fair presentation of 

 their views : 



We believe that the Tentamen was published about i8(;5 or 1806, and that 

 copies have been available ever since; that its authorship is clear, that its 

 author created a number of monotypic genera, thereby designating types ; that 

 these genotypes were published in tabular form under the name of their 

 former genus or subgenus ; that in consideration of the date of issue of the 

 Tentamen it requires no knowledge of Lcpidoptcra to determine that Papilio 

 polyinniii. or Xoctna sc(jclis are species which have been well published under 



