296 APPENDIX A. 



Those who reject Hiibner, and especially those who, like Mr Hampson, 

 reject Verzeichniss names, which are really accompanied by description, 

 should also reject all of Walker's names and many of those of several 

 other authors, and this has never been seriously proposed.' H. G. Dyar, 

 Transactions of the American Entomological Society xxiv. 6 (1897). 



Having defined the term ' nomen nudum ' it will then be neces- 

 sary to determine whether the British Association Rule § 12 can be 

 held to apply to genera published before 1842 and if not at what 

 date it became incumbent upon authors to obey this rule (? 1865) ; 

 e.g. are the genera in Guenee's Index MetJiodiciis (1845) valid? 

 They have been generally adopted but have no more claim to 

 recognition than have Hiibner's.] 



QUESTION IV. 



"Are the genera of Hiibner's Zutrdge to be accepted 

 or not ?" 



Analysis of Replies. 



To be accepted. 



I Walsingham, 2 Kirby, 3 Fernald, 4 Smith, 5 Staudinger, 6 Grote 



( = — j ; it may be assumed from his writings and note that Scudder 



concurs = -^ 

 \ II 



To be refected. 



I Hampson, 2 Meyrick, 3 Snellen, 4 AuriviUius ( = — j. 



Result — - ; majority in favour of accepting these genera. Dtirrant. 



REPLIES. 



41. Hampson (Sir G. F.). 12 September 1896. 



"That the genera of Hiibner's Zutrdge be excluded as being 

 ' nomina nuda ' and entirely undefined." 

 [Vide Hampson 51. Dur7-ant?\ 



