NOMENCLATURE OF LEl'IDOPTEKA. 289 



misszudeutenden Kennzeichnung durch den Druck, verofifentlich 

 wurde,' are complied with, for all Hiibner's species were figured. 



If the citation of a type subsequently identified with certainty 

 either from specimens or from a recognisable figure is not to 

 secure the acceptance of a genus, the types of many of Felder 

 and Rogenhofer's genera (and equally species) are rendered use- 

 less and take no 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." 



[Vide Walsingham 38. Durrani^ 



27. Meyrick (E.). 



"No; I reject them. The rule that generic names must be 

 accompanied by some sort of definition other than the indication 

 of a type is one of the few that have met with general acceptance 

 by zoologists ; there would be absolutely no justification for dis- 

 regarding it in Hiibner's case and enforcing it with other authors ; 

 and if it were set aside, we should soon be fliooded with new 

 genera. There is no pretence of definition about these ; I hold 

 therefore that their claim fails absolutely on that ground. In this 

 case there are also the additional reasons furnished by the doubt as 

 to publication, and the undoubted fact that Hiibner himself rejected 

 them all as generic names in the Verzeichiiiss." 



28. KiRBY (W. R). 



" If it is necessary for a genus to be characterised, the Tenta7)ien 

 must be rejected; if the assignation of a type is sufficient, it must 

 be accepted. Although no genus ought to be proposed without 

 characters, I hold that the least inconvenience would be produced 

 by the latter course. Although Glaiicopis of Hiibner is not 

 co-typical with Glaucopis, Fabricius (published in Illiger's Maga- 

 zine in 1807), yet they are so nearly identical that one was almost 

 certainly copied from the other. Therefore I think it likely that 

 the Tentanien was not published before 1807; ^o^ it is more 

 probable that Hiibner should have quoted a published name from 

 Fabricius, than that Fabricius should have adopted a single name, 

 and one only, from private MS. information from Hiibner. The 

 date therefore may lie between 1807 and 1816, when Ochsenheimer 

 mentions the Teiitajnen; but possibly information maybe available 

 in Germany by which we can fix the date more exactly." 



29. Fernald (C. H.). 



" I was opposed to the adoption of the Tentanien names }'ears 

 ago, but I now see that so many difficulties would arise if it should 

 be ruled out that I am in favor of adopting it. If the genera 

 of the Tentanien are rejected, I see no reason why those of Guenee's 

 Index MetJiodicus should not also be rejected, and perhaps many 

 other such lists in other departments of zoology, which have been 

 adopted and are now^ in general use. I do not need to repeat the 



19 



