NOMENCLATURE OF LEPIDOPTERA. 32 1 



Linnaeus as a ' genus ' although he did not designate this name by 

 that term, and that Plialaciia should be used instead of Heterocera. 

 There is no type of Phalaena, it is the equivalent of Heterocera 

 minus the Sphingijia." 



98. Meyrick (E.). 



"I agree with Lord Walsingham* that Phalaena, L. is not to be 

 used as a generic name." 

 [* Reply 97. Durrant.\ 



99. KiRBY (W. R). 



" I see no impediment to the use of Phalaena as a generic name 

 although it had originally no type : it was used by Fabricius in 

 1775 to include Geometra and Pyralis of Linne combined, and 

 was subsequently used by early French and English authors 

 (Latreille, Lamarck, Cuvier, Leach, and Samouelle) in a more or 

 less restricted sense to include part of Geometra^ L. \x\ fact 

 Lamarck, Syst. Anini. sans Vertebres^ p. 286 (1801), actually specifies 

 syringaria as the type, to which there seems no valid objection, as 

 it is a well-known species described in Linne's loth edition of the 

 Systeina." 



100. Fernald (C. H.). 



" I do not regard Phalaena as a genus and therefore do not 

 name a type. It should be regarded of super-family rank if used 

 at all." 



101. Smith (J. B.). 



"Phalaena, Linn., as a genus has no type since it was never used 

 alone in connection with any series of species. It is not quite the 

 equivalent of Papilio, therefore, and should stand on a different 

 footing, I am very strongly in favour of using the term in some 

 way, however, if it be possible, and rather prefer to employ it for 

 a super-family, to include all the macro-lepidoptera other than the 

 Sphinges. Recent studies seem to indicate the existence of such 

 a natural super-family, and it would seem to be a fitting use of 

 the term. The fact that the name had no type originally will not 

 prevent its use in a generic sense, if so employed by subsequent 

 authors, and I agree with Mr Kirby* that in such case Syj'ingaria 

 should be considered the type. This would also leave the term 

 free for use with a family and super-family ending." 



[* Reply 98. Dnrrant?^ 



102. AURIVILLIUS (C). 

 [Vide Aurivillius 81. Durrant?^ 



''Phalaena, L. seems to me as good a genus as Papilio and 

 Sphinx. It was by Fabricius (1775) intentionally divided, and the 

 name restricted to the Geometrae, and the Pyrales of Linne, in the 

 Supplementiini Entomol. Syst. (1798), Fabricius restricts still further 



21 



