322 APPENDIX A, 



to the Geometrae, and these are therefore the typical group of 

 Phalaena, L., and the type must be selected among the species 

 enumerated in Syst. Nat. X. Geometra must be rejected for PJialaena. 

 I am not able now to fix the type, but I suppose it will be 

 sambiicaria, papilionaria, grossiilariata, or perhaps syringaria" 



103. Grote (A. R.). 25 May 1897. 



" I do not know the type of PJialaena, L. and am under the 

 impression that this name was not used binomially by Linne, in 

 which I may be wrong. If I am right it has no standing." 



104. Grote (A. R.). 30 May 1897. 



"But the opinion of Latreille, Gen. Crust. Ins. 218, 1809, must 

 effectually disprove the pretensions of PJialaena to be used as 

 a genus in the modern sense. Latreille there says : Linnaeus 

 g&nxxs plialaejia in septem sectiones distribuit : Attacus, Bonibyx, 

 Noctua, Geometra, Tortrix, Pyralis, Tinea, Alncita. These sections 

 correspond to modern genera, and the true types of these are to be 

 ascertained. The ' genus ' pJialaena is a ' family' in our sense and 

 the word is not to be employed in a generic sense. This statement 

 of Latreille's overrules the alleged action of Lamarck and disposes 

 of the view that we are to search for the type of this supposed 

 generic title. All the above sectional names must be credited to 

 Linne as genera and their types sought for in the usual manner. 

 It would be simply contradictory or illogical to take the terms 

 'PJialaena Geometra syringaria' and hold that both 'PJialaena' 

 and ' Geometra' are genera and search for the type of both. The 

 two terms are exclusive. Either PJialaeiia or Geometra is a 'genus ' 

 name, both cannot be. In accordance with Latreille's statement 

 and following all modern usage we must seek for the type of 

 Geometra and let PJialae7ia fall as a name used in a family sense 

 without any corresponding genus of the name." 



105. {^Dnrrant (/. //.). 10 June 1897. 



" Professor Grote omits to note that Latreille, Gen. Crust. Ins. 

 IV. 226 (1809), wrote thus: ' DCXVi. Genus Phal^na, Phalene. 

 PJialcBna ( Geometra^, L hmj " &c.] 



106. Grote (A. R.). 



" The question of whether Latreille calls PJialaena a genus 

 cannot affect the fact that it was not a genus in the modern sense 

 as originally proposed. It has been wholly (except by a {q.\n early 

 authors) neglected and should be dropped to avoid dispute. 



Latreille's idea of a sectioti accords with our modern idea of 

 a genus, and the phrase above-quoted by me shows what Linnaean 

 names can be taken over as generic and that PJialaena should be 

 dropped. 



