/ 



-222- 



Aadalia hepaticaria, Guen.(Phal. I, 471, 1857.) Guenee's descrip- 

 lion easily reveals that this is the insect afterwards described and now 

 generally known as A. ntbromarginata, Pack. 



Acidalia luteolala. Hulst. This insect described Brook, Bull. Ill, 

 4', 1880, as Cidaria hiieolata, is an Acidalia and is intermediate between 

 ./. indiidiita, Guen. and A. sideraria, Guen. . 



Acidalia sideraria, Guen. (Phal. I, 450, 1857). This insect was af- 

 terwards describea as A. californiata, and A. paciji-aria. by Dr. Packard. 



Acidalia /rigidaria, Moeschler, (Wiener Ento. Monais. p. 44, i860). 

 Dr. Packard puts diis as a varietal form of A. inductala, Guen., which 

 indeed it may be. But if we thus place it, and are consistent, there will 

 have to be considerable "lumping" of other species. A. frigidaria, 

 bears no closer relation to A. inductala, than do A. sideraria, and^. stu- 

 liiiaria. In my judgement it is nearer A. sideraria, than any other form. 

 As species are now determined in this genus it seems to me to have ex- 

 cellent right to specific distinction. 



Acidalia magnetaria, Guen. (Phal. I, 450, 1857). This is the in- 

 sect afterwards described as A. rubrolintaia, by Dr. Packard. 



Acidalia pur aia, Guen. (Phal. I, 488, pi. 7, f. 6, 1857). Of this 

 species we have not only a description, but a figure given us by Guenee. 

 I can not see how any one can doubt its identity with A. cacuvmiata. 

 ^Morrison. Zeller gives a more detailed descnj)tion of the insect than 

 (iocs Guenee, but Guenee's figure is all sufficient for determination, 



Phrygionis argenlisfriata, Streck. This was afterwards described a.s 

 Bjssodes obrussala, by Mr. Grote. Mr. Grote makes use of the generic 

 name of Guenee, Mr, Strecker of the Verzeichniss name of Hiibner. It 

 is pleasant to see, as the smoke of the Hiibnerian conflict in passing 

 away, how Entomologists have come almost to a unanimity concerning 

 the value of the Hiibnerian names. Almost no one allows the possibil- 

 ity of the use of the "Tentamen" names. But the names of the Verzeich- 

 mss and Zutraege have come into very general recognition, for what- 

 ever can be alleged as a valid reason for discarding them, would throw 

 out the most of all generic names prior to Hiibner's time, and a very 

 large number of all that have since obtained currency. It is true the 

 determination of the reach of Hiibner's genera is involved in ditliculi)-, 

 but in the Geome/ridac that difliculty would hardly be lessened by ignor- 

 ing them. Un the contrary, in the Geometridae the adoption of the Ver- 

 zeichniss and Zutraege names, with the genus based on what is of gen- 

 eric importance in the type species, would be wonderfully helpful. I 

 confess myself to be one of the converted ones in regard to the Hiibner- 

 ian genera, and since I have looked into the maze of the genera of the 

 Geomeli idac, I am glatl I am converted. 



