322 THE entomologist's kecobd. 



i.e., in few words, a binomial combination published a second time, for 

 a different species, is invalid, except only if the first combination was 

 a synonym, and even then not if it was a synonym with another species 

 in the same (Staudingerian) genus. The rule itself cannot be 

 impugned, but the exception — to say nothing of the exception to the 

 exceptiun — gives rise to constant trouble and ought to be utterly swept 

 away ; whether a binomial combination has ever been published is a 

 matter of fact, but whether it was, is, or ever will be, a synonym is 

 often a matter of opinion, and it is quite wrong to build nomenclature 

 on such a shifting foundation. It is not surprising to find that Staud- 

 inger, with all his cai'e, has found it impossible to be logical in the 

 application of his exceptions. For example, in Caradrina he rejects 

 the older blanda, Hb. for C. superstes, Tr,, because C. hlanda, Schiff., 

 was another species (though sunk in the synonymy of taraxaci, Hb.) ; 

 but in Larentia he accepts liictuata, Hb. nee Schiff., and sociata, Bkh. 

 nee Fb., under precisely parallel conditions. Examples might be 

 multiplied were it necessary ; but the law without exceptions is now 

 obtaining such general currency that there can be little doubt that it 

 will be better applied in future editions, or future catalogues, Lithosia 

 deplana, Esp., nev Linn,, will then be called depressa, Esp., the Emerald 

 moths will be revised as already shown in Ent. Rec, xii., p. 180, and 

 several other similar corrections will doubtless be found necessary. 



One other matter in which the Staudinger-Eebel Cataloij is just as 

 inconsistent as its predecessor is in the treatment of the " Vienna 

 Catalogue " of Schiffermiiller and Denis. If the names are to be 

 sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected, according to the exact 

 value of the descriptive matter, nomenclature will for ever remain in 

 confusion, as the view taken of its value in individual cases will 

 constantly vary according to what Mr. Tutt calls the ' ' personal equa- 

 tion ; " and as none of Schiffermiiller's names are absolute " nomina 

 nuda," while some are excellently defined, it seems that the only 

 logical course is to accept all that are recognisable from any source, as 

 is done by Werneburg, Eogenhofer, and others. It must be remem- 

 bered that Fabricius saw the Schiffermiiller collection, and it is no 

 more unreasonable to accept the Vienna Catalogue names teste Fb., 

 than to accept those of Thunberg teste Lampa, as Staudinger is already 

 doing'''. That there is at present an entire lack of method, one or two 

 examples will show. Lasiocawpa tri/olii, Schifl'., is still treated as a 

 " catalogue name " although a citation from Reaumur, as well as the 

 generic characters, the name, and the traditional interpretation all 

 elucidate the meaning ; but Ortholitha bipunctaria, Schiff., is allowed 

 currency, although quite similarly founded. Larentia mxmtanata, 

 Schiff'., was regarded as a "catalogue name" in 1871, but is now 

 allowed to be a properly-founded one, solely, no doubt, to avoid the 

 necessity of supplanting the name by iwpUcata, Vill. [vide, Ent. Rec, 

 vii., p. 249). 



* Mr. J. Hartley Durrant has strongly urged upon the present writer the 

 necessity of this course of work, and has thoroughly convinced him that it is the 

 only practicable one. Traditional interpretations, and the like, should only be 

 rejected if they unmistakably contradict the original description — in which case 

 some accidental change of type-specimens or misunderstanding of a contemporary's 

 statements may be assumed to have occurred. 



