STAUDINGER AND RKBEl/s CATALOGUE. 269 



present he has considered it the most satisfactory to adopt the generic 

 nomenclature of the monographs followed — i.e., to accept Watson's 

 methods in dealing with the Hexpcriidac, Aurivillius' with the Lado- 

 catupidae, &c. But this has unfortunately resulted in several incon- 

 sistencies ; as, for example, the inclusion of a few names from Hiibner's 

 " Tentamen " {(JoclduUon, liipucrita, Diphtcra — which latter Hilbner 

 published as Diphthera), coincidcntly with the rejection of the rest, or 

 their reference to Ochsenheimer (cfr. Folia, Misrlio, &c.); the accept- 

 ance of a few (equally arbitrarily) of Billberg's ill-founded names — 

 Ailopaca {Adopoea, I'illb. sec. Durrant in litt.), Callnji/tri/s, Lejitidia 

 {Leptidca, Billb. see. Durrant) and ? A;iap<'tes ("satis constituta ?"), 

 and so on. 



To a similar cause are no doubt attributable some inconsistencies in 

 citation of dates. It is very satisfactory that a date is given for every 

 generic name (a distinct advance upon the 1871 catalogue), but the 

 Hiibnerian " Verzeichniss " dates as at present given are rather 

 remarkable ; 1816 is cited for the butterflies, 1822 for Sphimjidae — 

 Saturniidae inclusive, 1818 or 1822 at random for Xoctuidae, 1822 for 

 Geotnetridae, and onwards to the end of Theil I., 1818 throughout 

 Theil II. Germar's names from Part I of his dissertation " De 

 Bombycum Species " are sometimes given as 1810 {c'j., Airturnis) 

 sometimes 1811 {e.(/., Scolioptfry.r) ; is there sufficient evidence 

 that the work was properly published when written in 1810 

 (? at Halle) ? Ochsenheimer's and Treitschke's names are some- 

 times assigned the date when they were first published, sometimes 

 that at which generic diagnoses were first given ; the former course 

 ought to have been followed consistently, 1810 being given for the 

 Noctuid names of Ochsenheimer's third volume, and 182,5 for 

 Treitschke's Geometrid names ; they were not noniina niida, for they 

 were not only accompanied by lists of species contained, but also, in 

 nearly all cases, by references to the sections in the Vienna Catalogue, 

 which were duly described*. In any case, the date 1826 assigned to 

 Cnicalli.s, Tr., must be a misprint. The cross-references for the names 

 employed by both Hiibner and Ochsenheimer also require overhauling; 

 such references as that on p. 195, " i'aradrina (Hb., 1822), 0." (and 

 there are several of them in the Noetitidae) would suggest, by analogy 

 with "^Z//r/^rt (L., 1758), Wlsghm.," that the name was Hiibner's 

 and the restriction Ochsenheimer's — a rather absurd suggestion in 

 view of the fact that Ochsenheimer published his last volume in 1816. 

 Linne's subgeneric names Tortri.r, &c., so far as used, are generally 

 given after the method just noAV shown with regard to Ahicita, and 

 this is undoubtedly the right one; " (Teomctra, L., 1767," however, 

 has apparently not been properly traced historically (and why " L., 

 1767," rather than 1758?). A consideration of these questions of 

 dates, leads to a fresh realisation of the great importance of the work 

 of the bibliographer; and it is to be hoped that every scrap of informa- 

 tion relative to the dates of publication of Hiibner's " Verzeichniss " 

 will be eagerly sought after, and carefully used. In the meanwhile 



* Staudinger, however, certainly believed in generic "definition by illustra- 

 tion" alone, for bespoke (Hampson's Nomeucl. Lcp. Corresji., p. 297-'29S) in favour 

 of the acceptance of Hiibner's " Zutriise " names, and in his own 1871 " Catalog " 

 had erected his genera TJialerojiis, 'riuiKiiiiifln, O.Djtripia, etc., without separate 

 diagnoses; compare Eebel's Oucoddcnemi^, p. ;j54 of the new catalogue. 



