PROF. J. O. WESTWOOD ON THE URANIIDA, 509 
It has happened, however, unfortunately for these names of Hiibner that nearly all of 
them have given rise to disputes upon points of nomenclature. 
The name of Hiibner’s first group, Larunda had been used by Dr. Leach in 1814-15 
for a genus of Crustacea, to which the name of Cyamus had been given by Lamarck in 
1801, and adopted by Latreille (as quoted by Leach himself in Linn. Trans. xi. p. 364, 
where the name Larunda was proposed). It is still undecided whether a name which 
has been proved to be a synonym can subsequently be used for a different genus in a 
different group. ‘he difficulty here might have been solved by the employment of 
Latreille’s generic name Coronis (proposed in the ‘ Familles Naturelles’ in 1825, and in 
the second edition of the ‘ Régne Animal’ in 1829) for the Larunde of Hiibner, only 
that it still more unfortunately happened—lIst, that the name Coronis itself had been 
proposed by Hiibner in his ‘ Verzeichniss,’ 1816, p. 265, for a totally different genus 
belonging to the Noctuide (Phal. stollii, Cram. pl. 510. figs. A, B); 2ndly, that Coronis 
had also been actually proposed by Latreille himself for a genus of Squillideous Crustacea, 
to which it is still applied, in the work in which he also gave it to the Lepidopterous 
genus in question; and, drdly, that in 1827 Coronis had been given to a genus of 
passerine birds by Gloger, to which, however, the name of Gymnoderus had been given 
in 1809 by Geoffroy. This is the more annoying because for nearly fifty years the 
generic name of Coronis has been universally applied to Phalena orithea, Cramer, and 
its congeners by all entomologists, except Dr. Felder, who in 1875 used the objection- 
able Hiibnerian name Larunda, but with reservation. 
Although, as I have said above, I do not consider it unadvisable to employ the 
same generic name in two different kingdoms of nature, I can scarcely go so far as 
to think it proper to use the same name for a genus of birds, a genus of Crustacea, 
and a genus of Noctuideous moths (for if used in Lepidoptera, Hiibner’s appropriation 
of the name has the priority). It has, I know, been proposed recently to treat the 
‘ Verzeichniss’ of Hiibner as a nullity; but I cannot agree to the proposal. In many 
respects, indeed, this work is most unsatisfactory; but where the author has made 
(as he has often done) good arrangements of the multitudinous species of Lepi- 
doptera, which had up to his days been in a chaotic state of confusion (either as 
regards their family distribution or the juxtaposition of the different species), I think 
it is an act of justice to give him credit for his work. To prevent further confusion 
I therefore propose in this memoir to employ the name Coronis in a slightly modified 
form, Coronidia. 
Hiibner’s second name, Lyssa, is also liable to the objection that in 1815 Dr. Leach 
had used Lissa for a genus of Crustacea, for which it is still retained. The same name 
was also used generically in Diptera by Meigen in 1826. ‘To avoid this confusion, I 
propose to modify Hiibner’s name into Lyssidia. 
The name Alcides, proposed by Dalman in 1826 for a genus of Coleopterous weevils, 
is, of course, posterior to the employment of Alcidis by Hiibner in 1816; I propose, 
VoL. X.—PArT x11. No. 2.—June 1st, 1879. 4B 
