294 APPENDIX A. 



question affects mainly Ochsenheimer's work and this in but few- 

 cases. Ochsenheimer in i8i6 adopts certain of Hiibner's names 

 out of the Tentamen, citing it and its author, and says that he only 

 received it after his own volume in 1810 appeared and therefore 

 (daher) he could not have used it earlier. This is decisive that 

 Ochsenheimer regarded the Tentanien as of authority and as 

 published. To sum up : the Tentanien can only be rejected upon 

 the ground that the genera are without description although we 

 perfectly well know what HiAbner meant and can positively identify 

 the type of each generic title. But if we do this we must reject 

 also Ochsenheimer's generic names, also Schranck's and the con- 

 fusion would be terrible. But I believe the rejection of the Ten- 

 tanien to be virtually an impossibility. Alone through the use in 

 the Tentanien can we settle the types of many genera, such as 

 Agrotis, Plnsia, etc. The Tentanien is a great help and con- 

 venience to the nomenclator. For my argument against Hagen 

 and Edwards and for the Tentanien consult CJieck List, Part 2, 

 pp. 31 et seq. Buffalo 1876." 



" RoEMER Museum, Hiluesheim, 

 25 May i8gj. 



Dear Sir George, 



I return with thanks for your kindness in consulting 

 me my opinion on the various questions, the most important of 

 which to Lepidopterists is the recognition of the Tentanien. The 

 tendency in America is to adopt this publication for very many 

 reasons. I may refer you to a recent paper by Dr Harrison G. 

 Dyar, Pi'oc. Am. Ent. Soc. XXIV. p. 6, Jan. 1897*. From my cor- 

 respondence with my friend Dr Dyar, I believe that in most, if not 

 all (certainly in the important ones), he would agree with Lord 

 Walsingham, Prof Fernald, and myself I shall be glad if my 

 answers are sufficiently directly expressed to be of use. 



Yours faithfully, 



A. RADCLIFFE GROTE." 



[* Vide Durrant 40. Durrant?\ 



37. Hampson (Sir G. F.). 27 May 1897. 



[Vide Hampson 25. Durrant?^ 



" I am very decidedly of opinion that all ' Nomina nuda ' should 

 be excluded as they are in all other orders of Insects and branches 

 of Zoology ; this will of course exclude the Tentanien^ of the publi- 

 cation of which also there is no proof, the Zutrdge and many other 

 undefined genera." 



