1902.] 167 



I. Divia. Peclibus omnibus, 6 gressorius ;" (Billbg., 1. v., 75). 



" 2. Subdiv. alis inferioribus pro abdomine canalein formantibus ;" 

 " 2. Manip. alis oblongis. 



G. leptidea, Eg.— Pontia, Fbr., Ltr., &c. 



Sinapis. Svec. Linn. 



G. acaptera, Eg. — Papilio, Dr. 



(Typus Papilio crisia)." (Billbg., I. c, 7ti.) 



N.B. — Billbg., I. c, 76. — " I. Manip. Alis subtrigonis " sepa- 

 rated " Glycestua Dim. (MSS.) ;" " Cepoua Dim. (MSS.) ;" 

 " Ganyua Dim. (MSS.)," and " Gonrptera, Eg." {sic) — " Gone- 

 ptertx, Lch. Ed. enc," &c, for " Rhemni " (sic) and " Cleopatra,'" 

 from the two genera included in Manip. 2. 



[Those who hold inviolable, and established for all time, a name 

 containing an obvious error in orthography are to be congratulated 

 on the acquisition of GOHKPTEIIA a more recent acquisition is 

 " flavib is." Is this to persist in this form or to be corrected to 

 flavibasis ?]. 



It will doubtless be conceded by all that genonyms and idionyms 

 are absolutely invalid, unless their application is comprehensible. It 

 is a concession to the older writers that we accept a named but unde- 

 scribed genus if its types are recognisable. The reason for this 

 concession being that in the great proportion of their described genera 

 the generic diagnosis being absolutely useless and unscientific, such 

 genera are to all intents and purposes not described at all, and there- 

 fore have no better claim to recognition than genera which were 

 undescribed but illustrated by types. In both cases all we cau rely 

 upon is the genonym and the types which elucidate it. 



Hiibner's Tentamen and Billberg's Enumeratio appear at first 

 sight to require similar treatment— yet the two series of names, 

 absolutely logonymic so far as each work is concerned, are quite 

 dissimilar. The actual species intended by the type of Hiibner's 

 Tentamen genera can be at once ascertained from his inconographic 

 works. 



[If in any case the figure of a Tentamen type were unpublished 

 at the date of the publication of the Tentamen, such genonym and 

 idionym were mere logonymns until they were elucidated by the figure, 

 and the genus only became completed and valid at the date on which 

 the figure was published.] 



It must be granted by all that the Tentamen intention is capable 

 of comprehension. Can the same be said of Billberg's Enumeratio ? 

 Can it be argued that the mere citation of sinapis, L.," by Billberg 



