NOMENCLATURE OF LEPIDOPTERA. 335 



exactly the same date of publication as that on page i. In 

 according to Heterogiiomon (p. i) preference over Pandemis (p. 2) 

 an arbitrary rule is applied to secure uniformity. If Brown, in 

 i860, points out any reason why atraiia rather than viridana is 

 typical of Tortrix he should be followed. If he makes a merely 

 arbitrary selection of viridana he is too late and the rule must 

 apply." 



147. Snellen (P. C. T.). 15 Jan. 1897. 



"Je rejette totalement le systeme des types generiques. Un 

 genre doit etre base sur une description suffisante ; je ne reconnais 

 pas de types et je ne vois que des especes possedant plus ou moins 

 les caracteres requis." 



148. AURIVILLIUS (C). 



" Supposed that the genera were described I agree with 

 Mr Meyrick* respecting the synonyms in this imaginary (?) case. 

 Besides Pandemis was preoccupied by Pandemis^ Hiibn." 



[* Reply 143. Diirrant.^ 



149. [Durrani (/. //.). 10 June 1897. 



" The genera were assumed to be entirely imaginary and 

 homonymy to be neglected."] 



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



" The example cited makes it quite plain that Heterognomo?i 

 was t\\Q first restriction of Tortrix (Jones) and that thenceforth the 

 type of Toj'trix became atrana, by exhaustion and after viridana 

 was taken out as the type of Heterognomon. It matters not which 

 species was cited first by Jones. What matters is : which species 

 was first taken out by subsequent action ; the residue falls to the 

 original author. Pandemis is thus a synonym of Tortrix (Jones)." 



151. Walsingham (Lord). 10 June 1897. 

 [Vide Walsingham 142. Durrani^ 



" I have asked the proposer of this conundrum to decide which 

 solution of the problem is correct, and annex his reply. 



' Those who specified atrana as the type of Tortrix, Jones, are 

 right and those who cited viridana are wrong. I use the words 

 right and wrong advisedly — not with reference to the methods by 

 which the results were obtained, but with reference to the actual 

 facts of the case. The replies only deal with the genus after pub- 

 lication and do not pretend to decide which was the intentional 

 type of Jones, being satisfied with a type obtained by historical or 

 other methods. The assumption that the first species is the in- 

 tentional type is certainly wrong in this instance, for the history of 

 this genus was assumed to be as follows: in 1849 Jones described 



