146 THE entojiologist's record. 



I have o-iven the types of Dr. Chapman's genera, ascertained from a 

 literary point of view, and, from a study of the larv;^ and moths, as 

 far as accessible, from a biological point of view. The fact is not, as 

 Mr. Tutt states, that " literature must go." It is only through 

 literature that we arrive at any names at all. The fact is that 

 biologists must conform to the rules of zoological nomenclature, and 

 are not allowed to coin new names when they discover new facts 

 relating to insects already provided with generic and trivial appellations. 

 The contrary view would lead us into a state of confusion, compared 

 with which our present condition, bad as it is, would appear blessed. 

 The genus Apatrla contains so many types, which I think we might 

 designate separately, that I am led to believe that Dr. Chapman's 

 names may be preserved, which would please me not a little, although 

 this subjective view has nothing to do with the subject. The types of 

 Dr. Chapman's generic names are as follows : Vunuiia, type 

 virni/anthidis. The type cannot be rwiiicis, becaiise this species follows 

 auricoiiia as the type of Pharctra. The type of Cuspidia is iiu'i/aceji/nila. 

 The type of Hi.suJcia is of course liiiHstii, a form I have never yet 

 discussed. From Dr. Chapman's work it appears that restrictions of 

 his groups or genera are possible, and certainly, so far as my observa- 

 tions go, a further division is practicable. Mr. Tutt says : " So far 

 as the group has ever received a collective name, surely Acronyctidi is 

 that name." Without going back to Hiibner, if Mr. Tutt will turn 

 over the leaves of Harris's hhuj. In-sects, 1841, and the later Flint 

 edition, he will find the group called ApatcUdae. The type which 

 Harris has in his mind is Apatda atrris ; he describes Apatda 

 amcricano. Mr. Dyar is now studying the larvffi of the American 

 forms, which interlace with the European, and we may soon expect 

 some fresh information. There may be a telescoping of subgeneric 

 names. There are many surprising things to be found out, among 

 which, one is that the American A. affiicta has spatulate hairs like 

 alni and its " representative " (in the moth stage) fwwralis. Triaena 

 is extended in the number of species by Mr. Dyar's discoveries, much 

 beyond the type pd and its American "representative" species, 

 orridi'iitalis ; Mr. Dyar has five species corresponding as to larvas. 

 Now I do not think, in conclusion, that any of Dr. Chapman's names 

 should replace Ajiatda or Arnimjcta : such a replacement violates the 

 rule of priority. They may come, and I hope will come, to be used 

 for certain minor structural types, except Jlisidcia, which I think may 

 be considered fairly a genus, though the moth dift'ers very slightly 

 from I'lidirtra, and we have five species in which the larva is green in 

 the last stage, while our supciaus is prol)al)ly congeneric. We must 

 wait and see with patience, scientific patience, which in matters of 

 this kind is the best state of feeling to call forth. I have written chiefiy 

 from the point of view of a nomenclator, and as I understand the 

 matter, it is both a hopeless and an improper eftbrt to try to overturn 

 names in use, and the accepted action of the law of priority with 

 regard to such names. The nomenclator is not the judge of biological 

 work. If one biologist bases his genera on the pupa, another on the 

 egg, another on the larva, they cannot expect, in making new titles, 

 to have these generally acknowledged. The nomenclator takes the 

 names as he finds them ; the merit or demerit of their definition lies 

 out of his purview. But in sincere admiration for Dr. Chapman's 



