180 



THE ENTOilOLuGIST S KKCORD. 



The Synonymy of sori.e of the Emerald Moths. 



By LOUIS B. tiiOUT, F.E.S. 



Although, fortunately, the specific names of several of our Emerald 

 moths are established beyond the possibility of cavil, there are others 

 which have already suffered untold tortures at the hands of synonymists, 

 who, however, have not yet succeeded in placing them in a really 

 satisfactory state. As I have now at hand the whole of the material 

 necessary for a revision of them, I venture to submit, as briefly as 

 possible, the results of my investigations, worked out on the basis of 

 the " Merton Rules " of nomenclature. 



1. Metyovaiupa iiiariiaritata, Linn. — Though not related to the true 

 Emerald family, the popular name of this species justifies my mentioning 

 it under this heading. Many writers have tried to unite the )iiar;iaritaria 

 of the Fauna Siiecica (1761), with the uiair/aritata of the Syatenia 

 Naturae, Edit. xii. (1767), and this union has been sanctioned by 

 Werneburg and Staudinger ; but it is quite inexcusable, as Speyer 

 pointed out in the Stett. Ent. Zeit., 1888, p. 209. The former 

 {}nar(/aritaria) had a yellow Roman B in the middle of the superiors, 

 and Speyer shrewdly suspected that "Hab. HolmifB CI." was a mistake, 

 and that it was an exotic ; but being apparently unacquainted with 

 Clerck's Icones, he was unable to follow up the question further. In 

 1764, Clerck (pi. 51-2) figures his mari/ai'itaria, a species Avhich is 

 identified by Aurivillius (Hecens.Mus. Ludov. [7^r,,p. 180), as probably = 

 (jrhiphodrs frfny((^rrt?j.s,Gn., and is called 2/oroc'o.s»/rt »/rt;v/rtr/to/7'rtbyLederer 

 [Wivn. Ent. Mo}iats., vii., p. lOi) and Aurivillius ; Clerck or Linne 

 evidently made some mistake as to the source whence it was obtained , 

 as the species really comes from Amboina. 



As the name manjaritata is not identical with uiaiyaritaria, and the 

 latter is not a true Geometer but a Pyralid, there is no adequate 

 reason for abandoning the former appellation for our JSFetrocampa, but 

 its origin is to be dated from 1767, when it was erected as a new 

 species, and not as having any connection with jiiarnaritaria, Jjinn., 

 " Fauna Suecica," CI., " Icones." 



I may remark here that I have, after mature consideration, decided 

 against applying the Merton Rule (or rather, llecnnnnendation), No. 23, 

 retrospectively ; the rule in question expressly stipulates that " in the 

 future " generic names homonymous in derivation, but diflering in 

 suffix, should be avoided, and I therefore construe the recommendation 

 concerning species in the same light — " In the case of species, words 

 identical in meaning but differing slightly in form should [in the 

 future. — L.B.P.] be avoided. I do not, therefore, regard Vhalaena 

 Gevmetra pnmata, Linn., as invalidated by P. Ci. pruuaria, and so on 

 in many other cases. 



2. Lieometva (lodia) eernaria (Schift'.), " Schmett. Wien.," p. 97 

 (1775). — This name cannot possibly stand. Everyone knows that 

 vernaria, Schift". (the Clematis Emerald), rests on an erroneous deter- 

 mination of the vernaria of Linne, which the authors of the Vienna 

 work definitely cite. Whether or not vernaria, Linn., was a synonym, 

 as Staudinger asserts, does not aft'ect the question, and his acceptance 

 of rernaria, Schift"., is quite inconsistent with his rejection of LTeometra 

 [Cidaria) transversata, Thnb., nee Rott., and other similar instances. 

 The folloAvinq' names have to be considered in connection with the 



