NOMENCLATURE OF LEI'IDOPTERA. 295 



38. Walsingham (Lord). 10 June 1897. 

 [Vide Walsingham 26. DurrantJ] 



" Dr Staudinger's information that in his copy of Hiibncr's 

 Samnilwig eiir. Schm. (an old original copy) the Tentaincn is bound 

 up in vol. I. is most interesting and tends to confirm the opinion I 

 expressed in Reply 4 " (= 26, Durrant). 



39. AURIVILLIUS (C). 



" If we accept the ' nomina nuda ' we shall also be compelled to 

 take all the consequences for the future. For instance, if anyone, 

 not knowing a word about systematic entomology, published a list 

 of known lepidoptera and added a generic name to every species, 

 we should be obliged to acknowledge these names as entitled to 

 priority." 



40. {^Durrant {J. H.). i Jjilj' 1898. 



Lord Walsingham (Reply 26) wrote : ' No one will be disposed 

 to doubt the necessity for full definition of all genera published 

 afte)" the acceptance of the British Association Rules, but it was 

 impossible for authors who lived and died before these rules were 

 made known to act up to them. All previous work must be tested 

 b}' the meaning of the word ' definition '.' 



Those who agree with Lord Walsingham would consider that 

 the publication of the British Association Rules (1842) marked 

 an epoch in nomenclature and that 'nomina nuda' published 

 before 1842 stood upon an entirely different footing to those pub- 

 Hshed after that date. In the case cited by Dr Aurivillius it might 

 be argued that the author of the supposed genera not having com- 

 plied with a rule which has found general acceptance in other codes 

 the names should be declared invalid. The expression ' nomina 

 nuda ' has been frequently used in these replies but it has not been 

 agreed what constitutes a ' nomen nudum.' It may be well to 

 introduce a note by Dr Dyar to which reference has been made by 

 Professor Grote in Reply 36. 



'Those who refuse to recognize the Tentainen names base their 

 objection to them on the ground that the names are unaccompanied by 

 description. Now while the abstract proposition that a generic or family 

 name should be accompanied by a description to receive recognition 

 would seem to command assent, yet the ditference between an undescribed 

 genus and one insufificiently described is so slight that I see no advantage 

 in drawing a hne between them. In the Lepidoptera, especially in the 

 * Bombyces,' the majority of genera are so described as to be of no use to 

 the monographer, and it becomes a question of examining the type of 

 each. Under these conditions Hiibner's Tentainen genera and the families 

 founded on them, though not described, have a better standing than many 

 modern genera, for they contain but a single species, usually a well known 

 and easily obtainable one and the type is never in doubt. 



