28 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



As these supergeneric names were again printed in Hiibner, 1816, 

 they take Hiibnerian status of availability in 181 6 in case Hiibner, 

 1806, is not accepted as publication. 



Are Hiibner's binomials of 1806 noniina nnda? — Granting for the 

 sake of argument that Hiibner's Tentamen is to be accepted as a 

 published document in nomenclature and also that the binomials, ex- 

 ample, Nereis Polymnia, are to be accepted as publication of mono- 

 typic genera, the question arises whether these binomials are available 

 in nomenclature as of the date 1806. 



The point is to be emphasized that the question at issue is primarily 

 one of zoological nomenclature, not one of the nomenclature of 

 Lepidoptcra. For instance, potentially each one of the 107 [or at least 

 102] names in question, if admitted as of generic value in the 

 sense of the Code, might theoretically jeopardize the identical name, 

 of later date, in some group other than Lepidoptcra. Whether anv 

 such case exists, or not, is immaterial in the argument. The funda- 

 mental principle is that names in Lepidoptera must be available, 

 understandable, and traceable, from the standpoint of workers in other 

 groups if they are to enjoy status of availal)ility in Lepidoptera. Com- 

 pare, for instance, Hiibner's name Amoeba vs. Amoeba Bory ; also 

 Hamadryas Hiibner, ico5, vs. Hamadryas 1832, 1840, 1850, and 1864. 



The point is rather striking that in two votes taken by the Com- 

 mission, every vote but one cast by the zoologists who are not special- 

 ists in Lepidoptera was against the Tentamen. Here is a practical 

 demonstration that Hiibner's Tentamen presents difficulties which call 

 for analysis. 



Thus, the first name in question in Hiibner, 1806, is Nereis. There 

 is also a Nereis Linn., 1758a, 654, so that the Hiibnerian name is a 

 dead homonym, if interpreted as generic. But assume that Nereis 

 1758 bore the date of 1810; the zoologist who deals with the Poly- 

 cJiaeta would have to determine whether Nereis 1806 were a nomcii 

 nudum or not; his one clue is ''polymnia/' to which Hiibner gives 

 no reference as to author, date, or jmblication. It is, however, 

 noticed that Hiibner cites Nereis as I PapiViones, I nymphales ; and 

 possibly it might occur to the worker in Polychaeta to examine 

 Sherborn's 1902 index, where he would discover a Papilio polymnia 

 Linn., 1758a, 466; following this clue, it is found that Linne classi- 

 fied polymnia not as Nymphales (p. 472) as did Hiibner, but as Hcli- 

 conii (p. 465-467) ; conceivably, the worker might have time to trace 

 up later publications by Hiibner, to solve his terms genus (= species), 

 coitus (= genus), stirpes (—supergeneric name), etc., and to trace 

 the literature on polymnia, but this is, at least, open to doubt. 



