STAUPINGER ANT) RRKEl/s TATALOGUE. 267 



specific cletermination is rapidly coming to the front, and has often 

 found recognition in the references. It is curious that Staudinger 

 personally viewed this with so much suspicion. Eebel tells us that 

 " his rich experience of the variability of scale-clothing and habitus 

 in the lepidoptera, led him to extend his doubts to the constancy of 

 characters also in all other departments" ; but surely he must have 

 had the acumen to perceive that the segregation of a species — nay, its 

 very existence — was dependent in an infinitely greater degree upon its 

 genital apparatus than upon its markings or its form ! 



Kegarding the literature cited, the choice seems to be generally 

 good, in vieAV of the objects set forth in the preface — the ready 

 determination and dift'erentiation of the species. Messrs. Sherborn, 

 Kirkaldy, and those who Avith them reject all names founded on 

 figures unaccompanied by letterpress, Avill please take notice that the 

 names thus founded by Clerck, Hiibner, Rambur and others, are still 

 accepted ; and not only so, but Dr. Eebel tells us that, in general, 

 fujurcs are cited hij preffrenc-c because they serve in most cases for 

 ready identification. On the other hand, a strong protest must be 

 entered against the dropping of a good many synonyms, which 

 appeared in the 1871 edition, such as .s/jio^, Poda, io Papilio iMidalirins, 

 L., '7 dan'palpis, Scop, to Caradrina quadripnnctata, Fb., also of many 

 of Kirby's — ale.via, Scop., thetis, Rott., icteritia, Hfn., anccpa, Goeze, 

 kc. Everyone who has Avorked at all at nomenclature knows the 

 importance of having a complete synonymy ready to hand, and even if 

 Staudinger could not see his way to accept some of the conclusions of 

 Werneburg, Kirby and others, he certainly ought not to have 

 suppressed them entirely. Where, again, are the I'apUio fojlcins and 

 P. si/lri'stria of Poda, and a lot of other names which have been 

 identified with at least a good deal of plausibility, and which must in 

 any case have an influence on nomenclature by precluding a second 

 use of the same combination ? 



In Staudinger's part of the work, the original spelling of a name 

 is held inviolable, excepting only where it was not latinized at all — 

 such as Thais cerisyi, God., which was published as " rcn'si/." Even 

 the worrying changes of gender to bring about agreement with 

 changed generic names are (in theory) abjured by Staudinger, though 

 not by his collaborator, and he gives Lyeaena niinhiuis, Fues., Biston 

 liirtaria, CI., &c., as the accepted forms*; but a few inconsistencies 

 are discoverable, as, for instance, on p. 200, w^here Staudinger still 

 changes the )iatha of Hiibner into lirephis nutlnnn, and on p. 351, 

 where Bnpalns pinlarins is printed iov piniaria, L. 



The generic synonymy has been much improved, many of the 

 most glaring errors having been rectified, and more attention given to 

 the rights of priority, as is shown in the restoration of many of 

 Hiibner's least disputable generic titles.! But there still seems to be 

 lacking any consistent principle underlying this part of work — 



* The capital lettei's for all specific names are no doubt con-ect, as all proper 

 names demand capitals ; and their use prevents any grammatical objection to the 

 non-agreement of gender between the two parts of the name. 



t It is impossible to conceive, however, why some of Hiibner's good mono- 

 typical or isotypical names have been rejected, such as Paiwincriti for tenehrata, 

 Scop., (Jperophtera for bntmal(i,lj., and Imretitn. Hb.,(^e, They have been correctly 

 revived by Rogenhofer, Packard, Meyrick, and others. 



