has been used by another good authority I have retained it in 

 preference to a later name. Example : Glaea, as used by 

 Stephens ; Trigonoplwra, as used by Lederer. 2. Where a genus 

 has received a name as previously employed in a different sense 

 by Hubner, I have used the correct Hubnerian designation. 

 Examples : LithopJiane, Eustrotia, Bombycia. 3. Where the 

 genus has the same, or nearly the same limitation, with the addi- 

 tion merely of species since Hubner wrote. Examples : Tolype, 

 Habrosyne, Anisota, Citheronia, etc. I have only used a Hub- 

 nerian name, applied in an indiscriminate manner in the "Ver- 

 zeichniss," in cases under 2, as above; thus the question of what 

 of a number of species was Hubner's type is much simplified. I 

 have else preferred the later names, such as BryopJiila, Tcstiio- 

 cainpa, when to restore Hubner's name might cause confusion or 

 lead to dipute. Although a contrary impression may be circu- 

 lated, it will be found that in my " New Check List," and in the 

 groups of which I have studied the literature and structure, the 

 above limitations will generally cover my use of Hubner. I have 

 "resurrected " none of Hubner's names without long study, and 

 really I don't think I have myself brought a dozen in all into use 

 again. I refer to the preface of my first Check List of the Noc- 

 tuid(2 for the argument as to Hubner's genera and the attacks 

 made on them. I see now more closely the importance of keep- 

 ing a well-known term at the expense of Hubner, but as I have 

 not been extreme in my action, there are but few names for me 

 to retract. If the genera as now adopted by myself are mostly 

 confirmed, as I think they will be, the controversy will be short- 

 ened by so much. 1 have been explicit in this paper without 

 regard to a defense of myself, in order to correct the impression 

 to be gathered from some sources, that every slight struc- 

 tural difference is regarded by me as generic, every color variation 

 as specific, and that I have rehabilitated every generic name in the 

 ** Verzeichniss " or " Tentamen." These charges are made by 

 those who do not care to investigate the subject, their object 

 being to rise by criticising others. It would be easy to prove 

 them guilty of what they charge upon me where they have ven- 

 tured so far into print. In one case the " variety species contro- 

 versy " is simply used to cover up the real matter of the discus- 

 sion, as is doubtless well known by all who take an interest in 

 these questions, unfortunately inseparable from the study of 

 Insects. 



THE MACHAON CONTROVERSY. 



By H. H. Lyman. 



I have been very much interested in reading Mr. W. H. 

 Edwards' able article in the March number of "Papilio," in 

 refutation of Dr. Hagen's theories of the identity of P. Machaon 



