THE GENERIC NAME ACIDALIA. 
By Louis B. Prout, F.E.S. 
Now that we have the excellent ‘“‘ International Code’ of 
nomenclature to guide us, together with the supplementary re- 
port which appeared in the American ‘Science’ for Oct. 15th, 1907 
(pp. 520-523), there is some hope of definite progress towards a 
correct application of generic names, and I trust we can give a 
decent burial alike to the Scudderian phantom of “ restriction ” 
of one name by another, and the fetich of “‘page-priority.” In my 
own work under this code I have found exceedingly few cases of 
perplexity, and most of those long academic discussions which 
have delighted some of us will no more be necessary. Of 
Treitschke’s genera, mostly founded in 1825 on “ bibliographic 
references”’ to Schiffermiuller, and therefore prior to those of 
Hubner’s ‘ Verzeichniss’ (apparently not published till 1826), 
nearly all had types selected for them by Duponchel in 1829, and 
only three or four of his selections were really unhappy on 
diagnostic grounds. At the moment I am only concerned with 
Acidalia. 
Assuming that the date 1826 will be definitely accepted for 
Hiibner’s ‘ Verzeichniss,’ the name Acidalia really belongs to the 
Geometride. In my ‘‘Notes on the Wave Moths” (Entom. 
Xxxvili. 6) I pointed out that the only logical type for Acidalia 
according to the diagnosis was brumata, Linn., and I strongly 
adhere to that as my own personal opinion. But Duponchel in 
1829 selected strigaria, Hb.; Curtis in 1881 aversata; and 
Stephens in 1835 (Ill. Haust. iv. 393) ochrata. By the strict 
rule Duponchel’s selection must stand unless (1) the genus 
already possessed a type ‘‘ on the basis of the original publi- 
cation’; or (2) strigaria was “‘not included under the generic 
name at the time of its original publication,” or was a species 
inquirenda from Treitschke’s standpoint, or was doubtfully 
referred by him to Acidalia (vide ‘ Science,’ 1907, p. 521). The 
first was certainly not the case; of the contingencies under 
(2), only the question of the species inquirenda could apply, 
for Treitschke did include strigaria in 1825, and not with a 
query. I believe, however, that he was fairly well acquainted 
with the species. 
If, then, Duponchel’s action can be set aside, it can only be 
on the ground of the nature of the “indication” of the genus. 
Acidalia, ‘., was, at its original publication in 1825, mainly a 
name for an unnamed genus of Schiffermuller’s (1775), and 
Schiffermuller did not include strigaria therein (if, as I believe, 
strig ria, Hb., Tr. = virgulata, Schiff., the last-named placed it 
in a different genus). 
But it is, I suppose, better that a few generic names should 
B2 
