302 . APPENDIX A. 



and Westvvood. It is a curious fact that some authors often accept 

 the badly or not at all characterized genera of Boisduval, but reject 

 the genera of Hubner. The characters of a genus must of course 

 always be estimated from the points of view taken at the time in 

 which the author lived, and not from our own. By estimating the 

 descriptions of Hiibner's 'coitus' one must also take into considera- 

 tion the descriptions of all the higher groups in which the ' coitus ' 

 are included. 



With regard to the date, I agree with Mr Meyrick* and Mr 

 Hampson**, and think it best to take the year 1826 for the whole 

 work." 



[* Reply 54. ** Reply 52. Durra7itP\ 



60. Staudinger (O.). 5 March 1897. 

 •' Aus den eben angegebenen Grlinden ist es auch rathsam die 



Gattungsnamen von Hiibner's Verzeichniss anzunehmen, um so 

 mehr als hier noch Angaben (wenn auch meist recht ungenligende) 

 von Gattungscharacteren gemacht werden. Da Hiibner hier in eine 

 Gattung (Verein, Coitus) oft ganz verschiedene Arten setzt, so muss 

 in solchen Fallen die zuerst von ihm aufgefuhrte Art als ' type ' 

 dieser Gattung gelten." 



61. Grote (A. R.). 



" The same is true " [that the genera are virtually uncharac- 

 terised, vide Grote 50] "of the Verzeichniss. The date of the whole 

 of the latter is unsettled, on account of the coincidence of names, 

 i.e. Acronicta, etc., and the truth seems to be that it was not all issued 

 at one time. The first signatures were published evidently in 18 16, 

 and there is no reason to dispute this date on the title page. The 

 proof on the title page is positive that the first sheets were printed 

 in 1816. Also this date maybe inferred from the Preface. It may 

 be dated 1816-1826, by which time the last signatures had certainly 

 appeared (see the arguments of Scudder, Historical Sketch, and 

 Fernald). I agree with Lord Walsingham* on this point. Possibly 

 the approximate dates can be worked out. Practically the question 

 has little interest. If we give Ochsenheimer's volume of 18 16 the 

 priority, which we must, the ten years from 18 16 to 1826 cover 

 a barren period as to generic titles. The principal author to be 

 considered is Stephens, over whom Hubner has undoubted priority. 

 In special cases the workers in different groups will have to decide 

 when other authors' generic titles interfere with those in the Ver- 

 zeicJuiiss. In my special work the question has not arisen. I should 

 be glad to have one date adopted for the whole Verzeichniss, and 

 have proposed 1818, but this date would only show that Ochsen- 

 heimer's volume of 18 16 has priority, and does not settle the actual 

 date of the supposed separate issues or pretend to do so. This 

 bibliographical subject must await its monographer. In the mean- 



[* Reply 53. Durrant?\ 



