THE GENEEIC NAME ACID ALIA. 

 By Louis B. Prout, F.E.S. 



Now that we have the excellent "International Code" of 

 nomenclature to guide us, together with the supplementary re- 

 port which appeared in the American ' Science' for Oct. 15th, 1907 

 (pp. 520-523), there is some hope of definite progress towards a 

 correct application of generic names, and I trust we can give a 

 decent burial alike to the Scudderian phantom of "restriction" 

 of one name by another, and the fetich of " page-priority." In my 

 own work under this code I have found exceedingly few cases of 

 perplexity, and most of those long academic discussions which 

 have delighted some of us will no more be necessary. Of 

 Treitschke's genera, mostly founded in 1825 on "bibliographic 

 references " to Schiffermiiller, and therefore prior to those of 

 Hiibner's ' Verzeichniss ' (apparently not published till 1826), 

 nearly all had types selected for them by Duponchel in 1829, and 

 only three or four of his selections were really unhappy on 

 diagnostic grounds. At the moment I am only concerned with 

 Acidalia. 



Assuming that the date 1826 will be definitely accepted for 

 Hiibner's ' Verzeichniss,' the name Acidalia really belongs to the 

 Geometridse. In my "Notes on the Wave Moths" (Entom. 

 xxxviii. 6) I pointed out that the only logical type for Acidalia 

 according to the diagnosis was hrumata, Linn., and I strongly 

 adhere to that as my own personal opinion. But Duponchel in 

 1829 selected strigaria, Hb. ; Curtis in 1831 aversata ; and 

 Stephens in 1835 (111. Haust. iv. 393) ochrata. By the strict 

 rule Duponchel's selection must stand unless (1) the genus 

 already possessed a type " on the basis of the original pubh- 

 cafcion"; or (2) strigaria v^as "not included under the generic 

 name at the time of its original publication," or was a species 

 inquirenda from Treitschke's standpoint, or was doubtfully 

 referred by him to Acidalia (vide ' Science,' 1907, p. 521). The 

 first was certainly not the case; of the contingencies under 

 (2), only the question of the species inquirenda could apply, 

 for Treitschke did include strigaria in 1825, and not with a 

 query. I believe, however, that he was fairly well acquainted 

 with the species. 



If, then, Duponchel's action can be set aside, it can only be 

 on the ground of the nature of the "indication" of the genus. 

 Acidalia, Tr., was, at its original publication in 1825, mainly a 

 name for an unnamed genus of Schiffermiiller's (1775), and 

 Schiffermiiller did not include strigaria therein (if, as I believe, 

 strig iria, Hb., Tr. = virgulata, Schiff., the last-named placed it 

 in a different genus). 



But it is, I suppose, better that a few generic names should 



B 2 



