SYNONYMIC NOTES ON THE RURALID.E. 133 



Synonymic Notes on the Ruralidas. 



By G. T. BETHUNE-BAKER, F.L.S., F.Z.S., F.E.S. 



During the preparation of my proposed Revision of the Palaearctic 

 Pitiralidae, I have been coming to certain conclusions that are now 

 clearly defined m my mind, so that it may be weW to crystallise these 

 processes in a short paper ; at least so far as the European species are 

 concerned. 



The arrangement in Staudinger's Catalog is now so well-known, 

 that I propose to follow it here for the sake of convenience. This use, 

 however, does not mean that I accept its sequence as satisfactory. 



The first genera mentioned there are Ilapala, Lacosopis, Satsnina 

 and Niphanda. None of these call for special remark, it being 

 unnecessary to enter here into the relationship of Satswna and 

 Incisalia, Scudder. 



In Staudinger's genus Theda, Fab., considerable revision is 

 necessary. The type of Theda was fixed by Swainson, in 1821, as 

 hetulae, L., but this species had previously been selected by Barbut 

 (1781) as the type of Euralls and therefore Theda falls before it, and 

 is no longer available for use. Scudder, in his Historical Sketch, 

 p. 280, selects spini as the type of Theda, using these words, " Betulae 

 cannot be taken as the type on account of the foundation, in 1816, of 

 Dalman's Zephyr us, and consequently spiui must be chosen." This 

 selection is quite ultra vires in the face of that of Swainson, and it is 

 very curious that apparently it never occurred to Scudder, that 

 Swainson's action simply made Theda fall as a synonym before 

 ZepJiijrus, which also falls before Buralis. Had it been a species he 

 would have sunk it at once, and why he should adopt a different 

 course of action with genera, it is difficult to understand. He 

 unfortunately took this course not infrequently in that otherwise 

 valuable memoir, and it is therefore necessary to guard against some 

 of his conclusions. 



Hiibner's genus Stri/iiton (1816) next appears on the scene. With 

 the exception of betulae most of the species included in the author's 

 original list, belong to the Stryuwninae. Scudder, as the first reviser 

 who names the type, selects the American species titus, i.e. niopsus of 

 the original list, as the type, and this I am bound to accept. Tutt 

 rules his action as ultra vires on account of a supposed restriction by 

 Stephens ; he says, in his British Lepidoptera, vol. viii., p. 314, 

 " Restricted in 1835 by Stephens to pruni, betidae, w-alhuiii and spirit, 

 Scudder's action, therefore, in 1872, in fixing titus as the type is 

 ultra vires. We would suggest pru7vi as the type." I much regret 

 that I cannot follow my late friend's action in this matter. In no 

 sense can I accept Stephens' action as a restriction, it was merely an 

 ordinary usage without references, he was writing on British Insects 

 only and simply names those that he thought occurred in these Islands. 

 Stephens' use of the genus Stryuwn is in an Appendix to vol. iv., 

 headed, "An Abstract of the Indigenous Lepidoptera, contained in the 

 Verzeiclmiss Bekanter Schmetterlinge, Hiibner." This heading alone 

 quite prohibits any restriction. I therefore hold that Scudder's desig- 

 nation of titus as the type of Stryuioji must be adhered to. 



