168 [July. 1902. 



elucidated Leptidea, Billbg. ? Billberg may or may not have correctly 

 identified " sinapis, L.," but in any case his type of Leptidea was not 

 Linnaeus' type of sinapis, but the species which was sinapis (L.), teste 

 Billbg. 



How can we know that in Billberg's collection the actual expo- 

 nent of rapes, L., may not have been " sinapis, Ego," and of sinapis, 

 L.." rapes, Ego " ? Certainly Hummel does not give us much confidence 

 in accepting Billberg's determinations, and Hummel was in a better 

 position to judge than we can possibly be. It may of course be 

 argued that Billberg could not be mistaken in his identification of 

 Rhopalocera, but surely all his genera must stand or fall upon one 

 and the same principle. We cannot accept " Bnosis Eg, — Tinea ol. 

 muscatella, ISvec, Ebr.," as invalidating Incurvaria, Hw., one of the 

 types of which is muscalclla, E., and if his authority cannot be justi- 

 fied in one instance why should it be accepted in another (or others). 

 The mere citation of a type without elucidation must involve a 

 possible fallacy — we cannot therefore assume that doubt does not 

 exist, in which case alone can citation be accepted as valid- muscatella 

 (E.), teste Billbg., may or may not = rntiscalella, F. How can we 

 decide the point ? 



Two examples gathered from Scudder may explain our position. 

 Scdr., Pr. Am. Ac, AS., Boston, X (2 s., II), 170, No. 421 (1875), 

 accepts. 



" Eulepis. 1820. Dalm. in Billb., Enum. Ins. 80: Athamas. Sole species, 

 and therefore type;" the foundation being " Eulepis, Dim. (MSS.) — Nymphi- 

 d'ium, Fbr. — Lemonias, 111. — Papilio et Hesperia, ol. Athamas" [sine loc. Drnt. 

 MS.], " Eg., 36" (Billbg., I. c, 80). 



The species and genus were absolutely logonyms (nomina nuda) 

 and absolutely incomprehensible, and yet Scudder accepts them from 

 Billberg's Enumeratio ! Scdr. Pr. Am. As. A.S., Boston, X (2 s. II), 

 104, No. 28 (1875). 



" Aeropetes.* Billb., Enum. Ins. 79 : Liens (Licas), Tulbagliia. There is a 

 Castnian with the name of the first species, and it is probably the insect meant by 

 Billberg, although the species is Drury's,and not Fabricius's, as stated by the writer. 

 The group as thus constituted, consists of wholly incongruous material, and may be 

 discarded. See Meneris." 



This is the introduction of the personal equation on the part of 

 Scudder, who does not like this particular Billbergian genus— but the 

 geononym Aeropetes is as valid as any other of Billberg's names. 

 According to Scudder (I. c, 21G, No. 6S0) : — 



