268 THE ENTOMOLOOTSt's RKrORT>. 



particularly there seems to be no recognition of Walsingham and 

 Durrant's important rule that all revisions and corrections shall be 

 taken in strict chronological order. Thus many restrictions of 

 Hiibner's mixed genera by Stephens, Moore, Warren, Meyrick, 

 Rogenhofer, Hulst, &c., are disregarded, and more recent names by 

 Stephens, Treitschke, Duponchel and others, allowed to stand. 

 However, " festina lente " is a wise motto in connection with this 

 subject, and there is ground for genuine congratulation on the great 

 advance which has been made. The realisation of the necessity of 

 type-fixations will come later, and such names as Colias, Fb., Latr. 

 restr., will then get their right application. It was not anticipated 

 that Staudinger would pay much heed to this matter, as he stated in 

 the Hampson correspondence that he considered the " Type-Frage " 

 quite unimportant. 



A further attempt has been made to eliminate generic homonyms 

 — and here is ground whereon every sane zoologist must be agreed ; 

 Laria, Schr., Nfuronia, Stph., CTonojitrra, Brd. and others, have been 

 quite properly swept away, but it is inexplicable how I'lialcra, Hb. and 

 Acidalia, Tr., come to have been retained, and still more how Ephijra, 

 Dup., comes to have been restored. Lederer discovered the homonymy 

 in 1853 and substituted Zonosowo for Ejihi/ra : but it seems that he 

 was forestalled by Gistl, who in 1848 proposed Matdla for the same 

 purpose {ride, Knt., xxxiii., p. 41). Moreover, to say nothing of the 

 Ct/dophoya ol the " Tentamen," Hiibner's " Verzeichniss " provides 

 available names, either ( 'odonia (used by Rogenhofer, Lvp. von 

 Herniitcin) or Loucopthalmia (used by Meyrick). Rogenhofer's correc- 

 tions of nomenclature (Zoc. cif. ),hoth generic and specific, seem to have 

 been largely ignored ; this is the more curious as one would have 

 supposed his work would be Avell known to Rebel, and some, at least, 

 of his corrections need but to be known in order to be accepted — ('jj., 

 the restoration of the nsbme fiinbriata, Schreb. (1759) for Af/rotis Jiiid/n'a, 

 L. (1767), earlier pointed out by Briiggemann in Ah/i. Xat. Vrr. 

 Bremen, v., p. 597 (1878). Others, such as Rogenhofer's use of 

 Maniola (Schr.), Meig. for Krehia, Dalm., itc, require more careful 

 consideration, as they deal with mixed genera, and his conclusions do 

 not entirely agree with those of Scudder and others. 



One or two remarkable vagaries cannot be passed by in silence. 

 On p. 279 the genus " Stcrrha, H.-S. nee Hb." is allowed to pass for 

 sacmria, L. ! Meyrick's discovery of the utterly erroneous application 

 of the name Storha, Hb., has therefore clearly been noticed ; why, 

 then, has his correction been ignored? The right generic name for 

 saeraria, L., is of course lihodanietra, Meyr. (1892). Hardly less 

 unsatisfactory is the retention on p. 153, of Lederer's erroneously 

 restricted genus " Pachnohia, Gn." — with its type — species, tecta, Hb. 

 {cornea, Tr., Gn.), removed. Perhaps Sora, Heinem. {,Se/nnett. Deiitsch., 

 i., p. 459, 1859) will be available for Lederer's genus Packnnbia, but 

 unfortunately Walker {Atui. Man. ^<^t- Hi^t- (3), iii., p. 259) in the 

 same year (1859, April) employed the same name, Hora in Coleoptera, 

 and it will be hard to prove whether Heinemann published before that 

 date. The generic changes in the new " Catalog " are too numerous 

 to discuss in detail, nor would any useful purpose be served by a criti- 

 cism of their soundness or the reverse, until the methods upon which 

 Pr. Rebel works are more exactly revealed. It appears evident that at 



