A REVIEW OF SOME GENERIC NAMES IN THE 

 ORDER LEPIDOPTERA 



Wm. Barnes, M. D., and A. W. Lindsey, MS., Ph. D., 

 Decatur, Illinois. 



In the preparation of our Catalogue of North American 

 Lepidoptera we have determined to investigate the history of 

 all generic names now in use, and others as far as they con- 

 cern us, in order to be certain that the use of the terms is 

 correct according to the principles laid down in the "Inter- 

 national Rules of Zoological Nomenclature." We use Small- 

 wood's edition of these rules, and are indebted to Mr. F. H. 

 Benjamin for information on some later opinions, notably that 

 dealing with Lamarck's citations of 1801 which have been 

 accepted by some writers as valid fixations. We are informed 

 by Mr. Benjamin that these are repudiated in an opinion of 

 the International Committee on Nomenclature. This action 

 is strictly in harmony with the body of the rules as applied to 

 Lamarck's work. 



The one other set of rules which we have considered is the 

 "Entomological Code" of Banks and Caudell. We favor these 

 rules, for they are stated with enviable clearness and concise- 

 ness, but feel that the International Rules should be followed 

 by all zoologists, from the very nature of their origin. The 

 only point of extreme difference in the two is that the Code 

 does not permit a species to be the type of two different genera, 

 unless, of course, it be the orthotype of the second, established 

 through oversight after becoming the type of the first. While 

 this simplifies the fixation of a type in some cases, it frequently 

 makes a decision more difficult. 



In the relatively small part of the order now examined, we 

 find so many radical changes that we feel it wise to present our 

 conclusions thus far to the entomological fraternity, so that the 

 sharp criticism which we frankly expect may have time to 

 bear fruit in a more or less definite general opinion. Our own 

 attitude to this subject is that, while intensely interesting 

 research, the entire problem is so purely accessory to the true 

 aim of science that it should be reduced to a firm basis as 



89 



