854 GROTE—GORTYNA AND ALLIED GENERA. [May 4, 
would have to be very many more groups, at least six or seven, 
made of our American species. 
In final answer to Lederer’s being cited as an authority on gen- 
eric nomenclature, I will state that on page 234 of his work 
Lederer states unequivocally, in so many words, that he regards 
the Verzeichniss as of no authority. Consequently, where this 
work is regarded as of authority, as it now almost universally 
is, Lederer’s nomenclature fails. For his use of Hiibner’s genera 
and names is arbitrary and optative merely. There is no method 
in his selection, and this is reached by no rules of zodlogical no- 
menclature by which types are ascertained and generic titles as- 
sured. Lederer stands entirely outside of the historical method 
with regard to names of genera, as used, for instance, by Mr. Scud- 
der, Lord Walsingham, Dr. Dyar, and modern authors perhaps 
generally. It is a distinct part of Prof. Smith’s insincerities to 
conceal this fact. 
1874. Grote, Bul. Buf. Soc. WN. S., 1874, April-May, 18: 
nictitans, sera, inquesita, + salicarum (unidentified). 
Type correctly given as wzctitans and genus correctly dated 
1841. (Why is this citation ignored by Prof. Smith?) Through 
Guenée’s action in 1882, zzctitans became virtually the type of 
Hydrecia. In 1890 and 1895 I refer Hydrecta as the same as 
Gortyna, and it can only be independently used if mzcftans be 
made a generic type, for which there seem to be but insufficient 
characters. Since no description or type is given by Gueneée 
originally, and since the selected material is incongruous to a 
degree, the term /7ydrecia has the slightest possible claim to 
consideration. A most perfect example of Guenée’s neglect of 
natural characters is afforded by his statement in 1852, that /orea, 
with hairy eyes, confirms him in the opinion that cuprea, with 
naked eyes but armed tibiz, belongs to Hydrecza and to the same 
group ! 
