NOMENCLATURE OF LEPIDOPTERA. 293 



Indem ich auf das liber die nachste Frage (4)* von mir Gesagte 

 verweise, bin ich der Ansicht, dass die im Tentamen gegcbenen 

 Gattungsnamen keinen Anspruch auf Gultigkeit erheben konnen, 

 da die Artnamcn, durch die sic begrlindet werden konntcn, weder 

 durch Autornamen, noch durch citirte Abbildungen sicker fest- 

 gestellt sind, wie dies in den beiden folgenden Werken Hiibner's 

 der Fall ist" 



[* Vide Staudinger 49. Ui/rrnfit.'] 



36. Grote (A. R.). 25 3Iay 1897. 



" The genera of Hiibner's Tentamen are unquestionably valid and 

 the reasons given by Lord Walsingham* are the echo of my own. 

 There can be no reasonable doubt that the date is 1806. I have 

 long ago in print called attention to the fact that Ochsenheimer's 

 genera are also without diagnoses. Nomina nuda of genera are 

 not, or should not be held to be, names given to include already 

 described species, thus (as I have stated in print) of published and 

 known facts ; they are names given without description or the 

 inclusion of any named species, or for named species in MSS., the 

 descriptions of which had not appeared and where no possibility 

 is offered for finding out what the author intended by them. 

 Catalogue names proposed in substitution, or proposed as new 

 names covering described species (with or without the original 

 author's name), are to be held as valid. The test is a purely 

 literary one and the question to be answered is : Are the published 

 data sufficient to determine what the author meant? In every case 

 the names of the Tentamen can be identified through Hiibner's own 

 illustration of the species and the Tentamen is made by Hiibner 

 the basis of his arrangement of the VerseieJiniss. The scientific 

 value of the Tentamen must be measured by the literature of the 

 period, upon which it was a great advance. Even to-day Hiibner 

 is quite modern in his ideas. There exists absolutely no criterion 

 by which we can say what constitutes and what does not constitute 

 a sufficient description except that it answers the purpose of 

 identification. If we reject the Tentamen, we must logically reject 

 the Zntraege and VerzeicJiniss also, for genera, as well as Ochsen- 

 heimer and others for genera. We adopt authors' names for species 

 for the one single reason that we can find out from the published 

 data the species intended. Are there to be different rules for 

 generic names ? From the use of names in the Tentamen we can 

 find out to a dead certainty every time what Hiibner meant. Its 

 rejection is an arbitrary action, one not in reason to be defended. 

 The one weak point about the Tentamen is the absence of a date. 

 Upon this point Mr Scudder's arguments and those adduced in the 

 opinion of Lord Walsingham* are unanswerable. Practically the 



[* Vide Reply 26. Durrani. \ 



