NOMENCLATURE OF LEPIDOPTERA. 



J' J 



Pciitila was described (1852) by W^estwood with the species 

 undularis, abraxas, aenaea and } evander. Abraxas is the only 

 species which corresponds with the description, and must therefore 

 be taken as type. 



d. If the characters of a genus are better or in a higher degree 

 developed in one species, or in one group of species, than in others, 

 I think that species or that group must be held as typical. 



Linne gives {Syst. Nat. X., p. 496) as characters of Alncita, ' alis 

 digitalis, fissis ad basin.' The first species, nionodactyla, cannot be 

 taken as type, as not wholly agreeing with the description, but in 

 the last species, hexadactyla, the characters given by Linne are best 

 developed, and I therefore agree with Zeller, Herrich-Schaeffer, 

 Wallengren and others in taking that species as the type of 

 Alucita, L. 



e. If the description fits all the enumerated species equally well 

 and the author has not designated any type of his genus, I will 

 follow the author, who first expressly fixed a type for the old genus 

 or vitciitionally divided the old genus in two or more genera, 

 provided that he has retained the old name for one of the new 

 genera. 



It follows that nobody, who had not the intention to divide 

 a genus or to fix a type can be said to have done such a thing only 

 by enumerating certain species of a genus and omitting others, as 

 often is the case in faunistic works (e.g. in Poda). 



f. If the description and the enumerated species clearly prove 

 that two or more genera originally w^ere intended to include the 

 same animals, they must be regarded as synonyms and have the 

 same type-species according to the sentence : 'once a synojiyui, ever 

 a syiio)iyin! " [Vide Aurivillius 93. Diirraut?^ 



''Ciipido, Sc]\r2ir\ck{i^oi), FolyoiiiJiiatus, Latr. {\d>o^)?ind Lycaena, 

 Fabr. (1807) were all intended to embrace quite the same species, 

 and therefore it seems to me quite erroneous to fix different types 

 to these genera and use them in a different sense." [Vide Kirby 

 92. Durrani^ 



" Even if one approves and applies these principles, it will often 

 be very difficult to fix the types of some of the older genera. I 

 would therefore propose that some distinguished lepidopterists (for 

 instance in London) would undertake the trouble to fix the types, 

 in such genera where the types could not be fixed only wath the 

 assistance of the above principles, and thereafter submit the result 

 to the public. Such a procedure, by which common sense and com- 

 mon nse could be in some way regarded, would, I am sure, give a 

 much better result than the application of any new and arbitrar}- 

 principles. 



As such an arbitrary and ill-advised principle I regard the rule 

 to take the first species as the type. A consistent application of 

 such a principle would be very unhappy, and make, foi instance, 



