REMARKS ON HUBNER'S TENTAMEN. 11 
contained in 16 cabinet drawers. Most of the specimens were in good 
condition although somewhat faded as might be expected as the 
collection was an old one, numbers of the insects being from the Bond . 
and other contemporary collections. It was noticeable that all the 
insects described as being figured in well known Entomological works 
realised good prices. The majority of the extreme aberrations were 
acquired for the Perey Bright Collection, and Mr. Horne, of Aberdeen, 
also made many purchases. Messrs Newman and Janson were also 
buying, presumably on commission. 
(To be concluded.) 
Remarks on Hubner’s Tentamen. 
By J. McDUNNOUGH, Ph.D.,. Ottawa, Canada. 
In the May number of the Hnt. Record for 1919, the second instal- 
ment of Baker and Durrant’s comparison of Jacob Hubner’s Tenta- 
men with his Verzeichniss, elucidating his system of Lepidoptera, is 
prefaced by a few remarks by my good friend Mr. Bethune-Baker, who 
strongly supports the view that the Tentamen creates generic names 
perfectly valid for use by systematic workers. 
As my name is mentioned as one of those opposing the adoption of 
the ‘“‘ Tentamen ” terms as valid genera, perhaps a few brief words, 
explaining my views more explicitly than I have heretofore done, may 
not be amiss. 
The question of the validity or non-validity of the so-called 
“‘oenera’’ of the Tentamen has already been the subject of much con- 
troversey, and no one is more anxious than J am to arrive at a definite 
decision regarding this perplexing pamphlet. Until this is done it will 
be impossible to introduce stability into the generic nomenclature of 
Lepidoptera as, owing to the early date of issue (1805), the Tentamen 
terms, if accepted, will take priority over numercus long-established 
generic names. 
Since the publication of the brief statement in the introduction to 
Barnes and McDunnough’s Check List of North American Lepidoptera, 
I have given the matter considerable further study, and I am now 
perfectly willing to agree with Mr. Baker that we must consider the 
Tentamen to have at least been published, and that it certainly will 
not be sufficient to discard the terms therein proposed as ined. This, 
however, does not settle the matter to my mind, and we are still faced 
with the question as to whether Hubner created what can be termed 
modern genera in the aforesaid work or not. 
It is a well-known fact that Hubner did not employ the term 
‘‘eenus” to signify the category immediately above a species. The 
Hubnerian “coitus”? as used in the Verzeichniss has been, however, 
generally accepted as typifying the modern “ genus” and as fulfilling 
the requirements of the International Code in respect to generic 
validity. Turning to the Tentamen, we at once see from the title that 
Hubner is not dealing with coiti but with stiryes, and that, in fact, the 
Tentamen is but the merest skeleton of a system which was amplified 
ten years later in the Verzeichniss, where the stirpes of the Tentamen : 
are employed only in a plural sense and correspond with our modern 
ideas of a subfamily, or even family. The unfortunate fact remains 
that, in the Tentamen, Hubner, besides his plural usage, actually has 
