1 86 



credited to him, for the names were first proposed by him, and the 

 coiti such as they are, are as well defined as genera usually were in 

 those days. Hiibner's language was peculiar, and his classification 

 was based on superficial characters — but he was in advance of his con- 

 temporaries in his arrangement and classification, which is fully equal 

 if not superior to that of Entomologists of greater repute. Why, for 

 instance, should Hiibner's genera be rejected or credited to others, 

 while Guenee's genera, in the TortricidcB for instance, not sanctioned by 

 a word of description are adopted without cjuestion and credited to 

 him ? 



I do not desire to convey the impression that I advocate the adop- 

 tion of Hiibner's genera— not so. I believe that where an author has 

 subsequently correctly limited and accurately defined a genus his name 

 should be adopted and Hiibner's coiti cited as synonyms. What is 

 objectionable is, that coiti names are used in the same sense that Hiib- 

 ner used them and credited to others. It is allowable, where one of 

 Hiibner's stirps names is used for a genus, that it be credited to the 

 one that first used the name in a generic sense— thus Apatelcs is a stirps 

 name, and the genus Apatela is not Hiibner's. Agrotes is used for a 

 stirps, and Agrotis as a genus is properly credited to Treitschke. 

 This leads to a consideration of the Tentamen, and this is entitled only 

 to consideration as what it purports to be — a proposed classification. 

 None of the divisions are defined, and only stirpes are proposed, which 

 should never be used as genera for the reasons above stated. Ver- 

 zeichniss names, where they refer to good genera ought in justice to 

 be adopted as far as possible. 



A settled nomenclature is desirable and necessary, and in the course 

 of the work on the monograph of the American Noctuidse at which 

 Prof C. V. Riley and myself are engaged, the consideration to be 

 given to Hiibner's works will be carefully discussed. 



The above represents extracts and notes made, but not conclusions 

 reached. 



