NOMENCLATURE OF LEPIDOPTERA. 207 



precedence. The citation of types with generic definition is the exact 

 equivalent of figuring a species and not describing it, and in the latter 

 case this is accepted as 'defining' it." 



Prof. J. B. Smith writes : — 



" No, the genera of Hiibner's ' Tentamen ' should not be accepted. 

 The evidence in Hiibner's published works serves to indicate that this 

 sheet was prepared somewhere about 1806, and was primarily a scheme 

 for his own guidance — a tentative classification, such as almost every 

 student has at times made in the groups which he was studying. 

 Hiibner printed his scheme, and apparently sent out a few copies to 

 correspondents to obtain suggestions or criticisms, or for their informa- 

 tion ; much as if I should, by s means of a hektograph or other 

 mechanical device, multiply some scheme of my own, and should send 

 it about as a suggestion. It might induce some co-worker who found 

 the scheme feasible to adopt parts of it, just as Ochsenheimer did. It 

 is in this light that I think that author's sentence ' daher konnte ich 

 friiher nichts davon aufnehmen ' should be construed. There is no 

 sufficient proof of ' publication.' Canon xxiv. of the A. 0. U. Code, 

 above referred to, reads : — ' A noinen nudum is to be rejected as having 

 no status in nomenclature.' It is remarked in comment or explana- 

 tion that ' a name, generic or specific, which has been published with- 

 out an accompanying diagnosis or reference to an identifiable published 

 figure or plate, or, in case of a generic name, to a recognisably de- 

 scribed species, is not entitled to recognition, being merely a name, 

 and therefore having no status in nomenclature.' 



" Under a very liberal interpretation of this, and assuming that the 

 ' Tentamen ' was really published, the names might stand, because the 

 generic terms are associated with those of known species. But except 

 to one familiar with the associated species no information is conveyed, 

 since no author is cited for the specific name, and no reference is made 

 to any publication where any species is recognisably described. As a 

 whole, it is a bare outline of a scheme of classification, and nothing 

 more : with not a clue to the characters upon which it was based, and 

 not a syllable that would enable a student in Africa not thoroughly 

 familiar with the European fauna to place a solitary specimen. It 

 seems to me hardly possible to recognise 'Tentamen' names." 



Prof. C. Aurivillius writes : — 



"The names of stirpes in Hiibner's ' Tentamen' are, as also all 

 other generic names which are not accompanied by a generic descrip- 

 tion, to be regarded as not published (nomina nuda), and must be 

 altogether rejected. I can by no means agree with those authors who 

 regard a genus as established merely by naming a type. A genus is a 

 systematical idea, and can therefore only be established by a descrip- 

 tion or by figures of the generic characters. If a genus could be 

 established only by naming a type-species, no one would be able to 

 form an idea of the genus without preserving that species. It is easy 

 to understand how disadvantageous this should be for the systematists. 

 Everyone has therefore a right to demand that an established genus 

 shall be accompanied by a description by which he can form an idea 

 of what the author intended with his <?enus. I am unable to see how 



