PKOF. J. O. WESTWOOD ON THE URANIIDtE. 509 



It has happened, however, unfortunately for these names of Hiibner that nearly all of 

 them haA-e given rise to disputes upon points of nomenclature. 



The name of Hiibner's first group, Larunda had been used by Dr. Leach in 1814-15 

 for a genus of Crustacea, to which the name of Ci/amus had been given by Lamarck in 

 1801, and adopted by Latreille (as quoted by Leach himself in Linn. Trans, xi. p. 364, 

 where the name Larunda was proposed). It is still undecided whether a name which 

 has been proved to be a synonym can subsequently be used for a different genus in a 

 different group. The difficulty here might have been solved by the employment of 

 Latreille's generic name Coronis (proposed in the ' Families Naturelles' in 1825, and in 

 the second edition of the ' Eegne Animal' m 1829) for the Larundm of Hiibner, only 

 that it still more unfortunately happened— 1st, that the name Coronis itself had been 

 proposed by Hiibner in his ' Verzeichniss,' 1816, p. 265, for a totally different genus 

 belonging to the Noctuida; {Phal. stollii. Cram. pi. 310. figs. A, B) ; 2ndly, that Coronis 

 had also been actually proposed by Latreille himself for a genus of Squillideous Crustacea, 

 to which it is still applied, in the work in which he also gave it to the Lepidopterous 

 genus in question ; and, Srdly, that in 1827 Coronis had been given to a genus of 

 passerine birds by Gloger, to which, however, the name of Gymnoderus had been given 

 in 1809 by Geoftroy. This is the more annoying because for nearly fifty years the 

 generic name of Coronis has been universally applied to Phalcena orithea, Cramer, and 

 its congeners by all entomologists, except Dr. Felder, who in 1875 used the objection- 

 able Hiibnerian name Larunda, but with reservation. 



Although, as I have said above, I do not consider it unadvisable to employ the 

 same generic name in two different kingdoms of nature, I can scarcely go so far as 

 to think it proper to use the same name for a genus of birds, a genus of Crustacea, 

 and a genus of Noctuideous moths (for if used in Lepidoptera, Hiibner's appropriation 

 of the name has the priority). It has, I know, been proposed recently to treat the 

 ' Verzeichniss ' of Hiibner as a nullity ; but I cannot agree to the proposal. In many 

 respects, indeed, this work is most unsatisfactory; but where the author has made 

 (as he has often done) good arrangements of the multitudinous species of Lepi- 

 doptera, which had up to his days been in a chaotic state of confusion (either as 

 regards their family distribution or the juxtaposition of the different species), I think 

 it is an act of justice to give him credit for his work. To prevent farther confusion 

 I therefore propose in this memoir to employ the name Coronis in a slightly modified 

 form, Coronidia. 



Hiibner's second name, Ijyssa, is also liable to the objection that in 1815 Dr. Leach 

 had used Lissa for a genus of Crustacea, for which it is still retained. The same name 

 was also used generically in Diptera by Meigen in 1820. To avoid this confusion, I 

 propose to modify Hiibner's name into Lyssidia. 



The name Alcides, proposed by Dalman in 1820 for a genus of Coleopterous weevils, 

 is, of course, posterior to the employment oi Alcidis by Hiibner in 1816 ; I propose, 



VOL. X. — PART MI. No, 2. — Juuc Isf, 1879. 4 b 



