NOMENCLATURE OF LEPIDOPTERA. 317 



" VII. 4." [i.e. That a name included (without the species being 

 known to the founder) cannot estabHsh any claim to the recognition of the 

 species as a possible type. Durrantl] 



" This proposition, if too literally interpreted, might exclude all 

 genera founded on figures or descriptions of species otherwise 

 unknown to the founder ; but this is clearly not intended. § VII. 2, 

 2 A, respecting possible error, must however be strictly applied in all 

 such cases." 



88. Walsingham (Lord). 10 Jtme 1897. 



[Vide Walsingham 75. DiirrantP\ 



(VII. § 6 d). " A species subsequently removed by the founder 

 ceases to be a type of the original genus." 



89. KiRBV (W. F.). 10 Jtdy 1897. 



[Vide Kirby 77. Durrant?^ 



" VII. 6 D. The founder of a genus would have no right to 

 remove from it a species which he or some other writer had virtualK- 

 fixed as the t}'pe previous to such removal." 



90. {Durrant {J. H.). i July 1898. 



Lord Walsingham's note 88 (= my vii. § 6 D) had especial 

 reference to the hetero typical genera of Hlibner's Verzeichniss ; it 

 was intended to apply to such cases as the following : 



1. Hiibner, Verz. 384 — 5, proposed RJiacodia for four species, 

 the last hemg forskaleana, L. (Hb. fig. 143). 



2. Hiibner, Verz. 391 — 2, proposed Aleiinina for four species, 

 the last heing foi^skaleana, L. (Hb. fig. 143). 



Lord Walsingham held that Hlibner's subsequent action should 

 be construed as restricting the genus RJiacodia to the first three 

 species by the elimination oi foj'skaleana, which species thus became 

 a possible type for Aleiinina, the argument being that Hiibner 

 knew which species he considered typical and that he removed 

 what he thought heterotypical. If anyone had previously cited 

 for'skaleana as the type of RJiacodia, Hiibner would have had no 

 more right to limit the type to the other three species than an}' 

 other author unless it could be proved that forskaleana did not 

 agree with the original description.] 



91. KiRBY (W. F.). 20 July 1897. 

 [Vide Kirby 77. Durra7ii.'\ 



" VII. § 7 A. If one species is more fully described than others, 

 or if it is figured, it should be regarded as the type of a genus ; or 

 I would take the majority of homogeneous species as representing 

 a restricted genus. In a case of perfect indifference, I would take 

 the first species as a readily applicable mechanical rule." 



