80 THE entomologist's record. 



Mamedra, and for whicli the term Barathra must be retained under 

 the law of priority, which authorises a describer to take a species out 

 of a mixed genus and make it the type of a new one, restricting the 

 original term to one of the original species. In the absence of any 

 designation by Hiibner of the typical species, Mr. Smith's assertion 

 that my genus has the same type with Barathra is gratuitous. 



BoMBYCiA, Hbn., Verz. 1816-18 ? — Type : B. or. Cymatophora, Tr. is 

 preoccupied by Hiibner in the Geometridae. For a paper on the genera 

 consult Harvey, Bull. Buff. Soc. N. Sci., I., 276. The family must be 

 cedled Thy atiridae ; consult Grote, Pro. Am. Phil. Soc, 1S8, 1883. I 

 have examined two North American species, improvisa and semicircu- 

 laris, both from the West. The occurrence of the genus in Eastern 

 North America is not satisfactorily proven. Candida, Sm., from Florida, 

 is not improbably incorrectly generically determined. Mr. J. B. Smith 

 would ap})arently include also my Eunystalea mdiana, which, according 

 to Byar, is a Notodontid. Also C. magm'fica, examined by me in 1882, 

 and determined then as a Cossid ; finally my Ellida ijelida. It is hardly 

 worth while to criticize such a mixture. 



The date of the Tentamen, an undated sheet, is variously given at 

 from 1806 to 1810; that of the Verzeichniss, dated 1816, from 1816- 

 1822. The exact date of the Tentamen is not of consequence; it is 

 later than Laspeyres, but earlier than Ochsenheimer's 4tli volume 

 (1816), since it quotes a name of the former and is throughout quoted 

 by the latter. Names not published by Hiibner in the Zutraege imtil 

 1822, are quoted in the Verzeichniss, but they were proliably antici- 

 patory of publication ; on the other hand, names published by 

 Ochsenheimer in liis 4th volume (1816) are apparently taken and made 

 iise of, restricted in their application by Hiibner, in the Verzeichniss. 

 In the Tentamen, Hiibner does not seem to know Schrank, (1802), but 

 he restricts Ochsenheimer's use of Hadena (See Scudder's Historical 

 Sketch). 



For those lepidopterists who may feel averse to any change in 

 o-eneric that have titles become familiar, I may say that I have discussed 

 in these two papers the most radical of the necessary restitutions. They 

 have heard what has to be sacrificed for the sake of getting on the 

 right line. I may say that for most of the generic names in Staudinger 

 no alteration is required. The titles of certain more extensive genera, 

 such as Polia, Mamcstra, Xanthia, Orihosia, Cucullia, Plusiu, Catocala, 

 and others, will remain. The names of genera of small extent such as 

 Bemas, Dipterygia, Naenia, Coenobia, Senta, Meliana, Dicycla, Cirrhoe- 

 dia, Scopelosonta, Calpe, and many others, are untouched. On the 

 other hand, several of Boisduval's generic names, such as Hoporina and 

 Plastenis, which now usurp the place of Hiibner's titles, will have to 

 cro. Glaea must be used instead of Cerastis or Orrhodia, as long ago 

 pointed out by that excellent entomologist, Stephens. Many of the 

 necessary restitutions have been made by me in listing the North 

 American Noctuidae. I gave in 1874-6 the exact types of most of the 

 "•enera. In now going over this work again I find, so far, little to 

 chan^'^e. The type xerampelina which I gave in 1874 to Atethnia, 

 belongs to Cirrhoedia, since Hiibner's is a mixed genus. Those using 

 my North-American Lists enjoy at least the comfort of being able to 

 employ the oldest generic titles upon occasion. 



