32 Journal New York Entomological Society. [Voi. v. 



Guenee in the 3d vol. of the Spec. Gen., it makes no difference, there- 

 fore, whether the change is made by him in the first or second use of 

 the name. It must be followed and Guenee's request be granted, be- 

 cause the question of priority does not come into play. We have no 

 right to change the second use of the name, when Guenee asks us to 

 change the first. And there is no doubt that the use twice over of the 

 same name in nearly allied genera is productive of confusion. In my 

 own case I was led to propose to take " nic titans " as the type of Apamea, 

 because Ochsenheimer had a species of this name in the genus which I 

 wrongly took to be the common Gortpia nictitans L. sp., whereas it is 

 a species or variety referable to the genus Oligia. But we have no right 

 to change the specific names of other writers on this account and I 

 think that the fourth name for our species, fasttiosa of Guenee, must be 

 referred to the synonymy. As there has been a neglect of the "Man- 

 tissa" of Fabricius, it may be well to include this citation in the syno- 

 nymy of the species. 



We have now arrived at what seems to be the correct name for the 

 species, viz: elegans Hiibn. But a difficulty meets us as to the generic 

 title also. The generic title Euglyphia, from the Verzeichniss, is pre- 

 occupied by Hiibner himself, with the exception of a single letter, in the 

 name Euglyphis. What is evidently the same name, even when dis- 

 tinguished by the change or addition of a single letter, cannot be again 

 admitted. Here the question is quite clear from the almost identity of 

 the terms. We cannot admit Euglyphis and Euglyphia, any more than 

 we can admit Oenosandra and Oenosanda. The similarity would in- 

 evitably create that confusion which the rule was intended to obviate. 

 The reason given by Herrich-Schseffer, Schm. Cuba, III, 8, for retain- 

 ing Euglyphia, that the prior Euglyphis was "probably" not a valid 

 genus, has no bearing on the case. The nomenclator is not called 

 upon to judge of the validity of biological groups. Guenee proposed 

 the generic title Noropsis for our species, while Herrich-Scha^ffer ob- 

 jects (/. r.) that this term is too near Norops, already used in zoology. 

 If it were so, it would be a reason for a new term, and it is a delicate 

 question, since the derivation is identical. But I am inclined to believe 

 that the two are sufficiently distinct and that we may rest content in the 

 title Noropsis elegans Hiibn. sp., for the pretty moth and let it go at 

 that. 



