NOMENCLATURE OF LEPIDOPTERA. 3OI 



rejecting them. The dates must be fixed by what evidence is 

 available, and those assigned by Scudder are apparently fairly 

 correct. The question is, however, of secondary importance ; for 

 the number of new genera published between 1807 and 18 16 or 

 between 18 16 and 1827 is very small." 



56. Fernald (C. H.). 



" I have never doubted the propriety of using the genera of 

 Hlibner's VerzcicJiniss. The title page is dated 18 16, but there is 

 internal evidence sufficient to prove that it was not all published at 

 that time. I have thus far only concerned myself with the date of 

 publication of the part pertaining to the micros. There is a 

 reference on page 312 to the 3rd Century of the Ziitrdge, which was 

 published Aug. 27, 1825, but this page is in a signature which 

 begins on page 305. The 3rd Century of the Zntrdge, p. 34, refers 

 to page 294 of the VcrzeicJiniss, but this page is in a signature 

 which ends with page 304. I therefore conclude that the first 304 

 pages were published before Aug. 27, 1825, and the following pages 

 between Aug. 27, 1825, and the time of Hubner's death, which 

 occurred Sept. 13, 1826." 



57. Smith (J. B.). 



" Yes : — I can see no reason for rejecting the Verzeichniss 

 genera. They are at least as well based as those of other writers of 

 the same date, and the descriptions compare not unfavourably with 

 some ' diagnoses ' of a more recent period. No date earlier than 

 1823 can be accepted for the Noctuid portion of the Verzeichniss 

 from my own researches, while Mr Scudder shows that 1826 for the 

 completed work is probably correct." 



58. Snellen (P. C. T.). i5/«;/. 1897. 



" D'abord ce Catalogue porte une date de publication qui est 

 fausse, et pour lui en assigner une qui serait approximativement 

 juste il faudrait toujours user de I'arbitraire. Puis, ce que Hubner 

 donne comme description, est sans valeur. II est vrai que les 

 genres de Schrank, d'Ochsenheimer, de Treitschke et en general de 

 la majorite des auteurs qui ont ecrit sur les Lepidopteres dans le 

 premier tiers du siecle present, ne valent guere mieux ; on I'eprouve 

 quand on tache de classer quelque espece nouvelle dans ces 

 genres." 



59. AURIVILLIUS (C). 



" The genera (' coitus ') of Hubner's Verzeichniss are accom- 

 panied by descriptions, and must be accepted. 



They are often rejected as insufficiently or wrongly determined, 

 but if we reject Hubner's genera we must certainly also reject all 

 the old genera before the days of Herrich-Schaeffer, Doubleday 



