SCIENTIFIC NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 189 



he found that he could draw water through them, and called my 

 attention to the fact. I examined a number of different kinds, and 

 found tluit my statement that the nervnres presented a structure some- 

 what like that of bamboo is incorrect. The nervures are, as stated by 

 Kirby and Spence, hollow tubes and, for all practical purposes, empty. 

 What I took for separations are the dried remains of what may have 

 been moisture and are of a frothy consistence ; they offer no resistance 

 to the touch and do not adhere to the walls of the nervure ; they are 

 also irregular distances apart. I found one space, about 1^-in. long, 

 quite empty ; the walls of the tube were clean, as if no moisture had 

 ever touched it. If anything can be said to fill the nervures, it must be 

 air. I must have jumped to a conclusion, without investigating that 

 particular point, when I gave expression to what I thought I had seen. 

 Still, I think the evidence is against the idea of the fluid entering the 

 nervures, though not against the possibility of its doing so. A great 

 deal of investigation is still needed ; and that, too, by different persons, 

 so that the observations of one may be tested by others and so finally 

 the truth may be arrived at. — J. Alston Moffat, London, Ontario. 

 March Uh, 1895. 



Pre-occupied generic names IN THE Lepidoptera. — Under this 

 title Mr. Meyrick publishes a note in the E. M. M. for March (p. 72), 

 wherein the statement is made that " generic names are now, for the 

 sake of accuracy (?) and clearness, treated as combinations of letters 

 without meanings and accordingly exempted from orthographical emen- 

 dation ; hence a difference of a single letter must be held to constitute 

 a distinct name." I have not heard that such treatment has been 

 authorised by any rules of nomenclature adopted b^'^ any competent 

 body, and Mr. Meyrick's statement would seem to be contradicted by 

 himself in the conclusion of his note, where he says, in regard to a 

 corrected spelling of certain original names, that he sees " no reason 

 why those who prefer the correct form should not continue to use 

 it." Therefore corrections of an original name are allowable, and if 

 corrections, then it follows that the original form is not inviolable and 

 is not to be held as a mere senseless combination of letters. The entire 

 object of the rule against duplication would seem to have its origin in 

 the necessity for avoiding confusion. But this is equally liable to 

 happen if there is only an i;nimportant letter to separate the names, a 

 letter liable to be lost in pronunciation or confounded in writing or 

 printing. Eupsclia and Eiipsilia are distinguishable only by such an 

 unimportant letter. An important letter would be a consonant affecting 

 the root of tlie word or the prefix, not an interchangeable vowel nor a 

 suffix. We might, for example, use Tepida and Lepida, but could we 

 use Lepeda and Lepida ? What is most certainly the same name or 

 word, sometimes receives in the original printing a wrong letter by 

 printer's error. It is not therefore a different name. It would appear 

 that " single letters " are of varying value, and that the singularity 

 which is sufficient in one case may fail in another to validate the 

 generic title as a distinct name. The names cited by Mr. Meyrick, 

 viz.: GraciUdvia and Gracilaria, etc., if " mere combinations of letters," 

 might e(iually well be used for distinct genera witli Pandoiios and 

 I'dudi'mis, if a single letter witliout reference to its (|uality or jiosition 

 were really sufficient to establish names as distinct. As 1 understand 



