133 



In September, 1877, I received several butterflies from Mr. IJoll, all 

 taken that season in Texas, and at once described them in Can. Ent. 

 IX, October, 1877, and in Field and Forest, III, November, 1877. 

 These species were Mel. Ulrica, Mel. Dyiiias, Cliaris Australis, Am- 

 blyscirtes Nysa, Pholisoi'a Nessiis. In March, 1878, appeared .Strecker's 

 Part 14, but bearing- on the cover the date 1S77! I received my copy 

 March 28, 1878, and wrote the date on the co\'er. In this Part ap- 

 peared duplicate names for all the species spoken ot, described by me 

 October-No\'ember, 1877; also Scudder's Satynis Dionysius, 1877, was 

 re-described as Ashtaroth, Str. In Cm. Ent. X, p. 79, April, 1878, 

 rppeared a review of Strecker's Part 14 by Mr. Saunders, the editor. 

 He says the Part reached him March 28th, and on inquiry he finds 

 other subscribers received it within a day or two of that date, and pro- 

 ceeds: " We desire to call particular attention to this fact, as this Part 

 of the work, in which a number ot species are described as new, bears 

 the date of 1877. In Dr. Hayden's last Report, Mr. Scudder de- 

 scribed a Satvriis larger than Ridingsil, and like it, from Utah, as 

 Dionysius, which seems to be identical with Mr. Strecker's Ashtaroth. 

 Mr. Strecker's M. Imitata is also doubtless a synonym of M. Ulrica 

 Edw. , Can. Ent. IX, p. 189; his M. Lariinda the same as M. Dymas, 

 Edw., 1. c. p. 190; his Pauiphila Similis, Edwards' Amblyscirtes Ah'sa, 

 1. c. p. 191; his Charts Guadahnipe identical with C. Aicstralis, Edw., 

 Field and Forest, November, 1877." And Mr. .Saunders reprobates 

 severely this practice of antedating, as will be seen on reference to the 

 paper. I add further that Mr. Strecker's S. N^otabilis is identical with 

 P. Ncssiis (^Pyrgas A^essics, as Dr. Speye^' gives it). 



To the criticisms of Mr. Saunders the other replied bv entering all 

 his names spoken of in his Catalogue of Butterflies and Moths, issued 

 1878, as rightful, with the particular date to each of "September, 

 1877," followed by the name given by me as "October, 1877." In 

 the case of Dionysius, Scud., it reads "Ashtaroth Str., September, 

 1877; Dionysius, Scud., February, 1878." 



Only the younger lepidopterists need to be reminded that printing 

 is not publishing, and that the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature are 

 explicit in demanding publication in order to insure recognition of the 

 name given to any species. Part 14 spoken of was published late in 

 March, 1878, but bore on its cover the date 1S77, and that settles the 

 matter as to the priority of these names. The date in the Catalogue 

 of " September, 1877," does not better the claim made by Mr. Strecker. 



Not only was Part 14 antedated many months, but Part 15 also bears 

 the date of 1877, and was delivered to subscribers late in July, 1878. 

 This contains but one description of butterfly, ^1/el. Aiwa, and in 

 Strecker's Catalogue the species is put down as of 1877. It happens 

 in this case that there is no synonym, and the question of antedating 



