300 APPENDIX A. 



REPLIES. 



52. HampsON (Sir G. F.). 12 September 1896. 



" That the genera of Hiibner's Verzeichniss be accepted as they 

 are to a certain extent defined and therefore not 'nomina nuda': 

 I am of opinion that the date assigned to the Verzeichniss genera 

 should be 1827 when Geyer pubHshed the collected work which 

 Hiibner had in part or perhaps wholly distributed in sheets at 

 uncertain intervals during his life-time, but never definitely 

 published. 



If this date (1827) be assigned to it the nomenclature based on 

 it would have some possibility of permanence." 



[Vide Hampson 62. Durrant.\ 



53. Walsingham (Lord). 



" The Verzeichniss was undoubtedly pubHshed and the genera 

 are accompanied by definitions. This work complies with all the 

 requirements of the various codes and must be accepted. As to 

 date — it was published in parts from 18 16 to 1825 or 6. The last 

 page was published before January 1827, for the wJiole work is 

 reviewed in detail in the Isis, vol. XX. pp. 103-4 (January 1827). 

 Hiibner died 13th September 1826, and as there is no evidence 

 whatever that any part of the Verzeichniss was published post- 

 humously we can say with certainty that the last page was 

 published by 1826 and almost certainly that it was published before 

 13th September 1826. Page 312 was published after 27th August 

 1825, as noted by Scudder, and it is probable that the last page 

 (p. 431) was published in the same year or early in 1826. 



The dates given by Scudder seem to be approximately correct 

 and are in the main confirmed by results obtained by myself 

 independently. (Vide Wlsm. Pr. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1895, p. XXXVI.)" 



54. Meyrick (E.). 



"These must be accepted; many have in fact been long in use. 

 Their definitions, though largely based on colour, are honest at- 

 tempts at diagnoses, and quite as scientific as most other work of 

 that date ; more scientific indeed than some later work, such as 

 Walker's. With regard to the date, considering the uncertain 

 mode of their publication, and the very slight available evidence, 

 I think it would be politic to accept 1826 as the date of the whole 

 work." 



55. KiRiiY (W. F.). 



" The genera of the Verzeichniss have a better claim to stand 

 than those of the Ztitrdge or Tentamcn, and have been recognised 

 by so many authors that much inconvenience would result by 



