ive THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 
employed the stirps name in the singular in connection with a valid 
specific name. To an unbiased mind it must seem evident that the 
intention was merely to cite a species considered by the author to be 
typical of each stirps, and the usage of the term in the singular num- 
ber was probably merely to conform to the rules of correct Latin ; one 
of the strongest arguments in favour of this view is the fact that in 
the Verzeichniss each and every specific name used in the Tentamen 
is placed by Hubner in a coitus not identical in name with the term 
employed in the Tentamen (as would naturally be the case if he had 
intended creating coiti in this pamphlet), but for which he either uses 
a generic name created by one of the early writers (Fabricius, Schrank, 
Ochsenheimer, etc.), or, failing this, actually proposes a new term. 
The vital question then is, briefly stated: Did Hubner by his em- 
ployment of a stirps name in the singular, along with a valid specific 
name actually—-even if unintentionally—create a valid generic name ? 
Common sense would seem to tell us, No, but on the other hand there 
is nothing in the International Code which would definitely forbid the 
use of these terms as genera, nor,can I find any ruling under the 
Opinions rendered by the International Committee which would cover 
this case. Under the Code the sole absolute requirements for generic 
validity would appear to be uninominality and association with a valid 
specific name. 
I would, therefore, offer the suggestion that the decision be left to 
an International Committee. I, for one, would willingly abide by 
their ruling, and I am sure that most systematic workers in Lepi- 
doptera would be glad to see the end of a vexation question which, 
while affecting considerably the nomenclature of Lepidoptera, has, 
after all, no vital bearing on the larger problem of the interrelation- 
ships of the various species. 
[I am very glad to see my friend Dr. McDunnough’s paper and to 
read his views on the Tentamen. Especially important is his view that 
it is no longer possible to consider the publication referred to as ‘‘ ined.” 
I cannot however follow him in his effort to reconcile the exact 
terminology of the Tentamen with the Verzeichniss. It is to me 
immaterial whether “ stirpes’’ and “coiti” have any relation to the 
Tentamen or not, because such relationship would not invalidate the 
nomenclature of the latter. Priority of publication is the all important 
point and this being so the nomenclature of the Verzeichniss falls to the 
Tentamen. 
Dr. McDunnough says of the Tentamen: ‘Did Hubner by his 
employment of a stirpes name in the singular along with a valid 
specific name—eyven if unintentionally—create a valid generic name?” 
He replies to his question by saying ‘Common sense would seem to 
tell us No.” 
Here I differ entirely from my friend. It is years ago since Tutt’s 
reprint of the Tentamen came into my hands, and I then studied the 
question quite independently and came to the same conclusion that 
Mr. Durrant had already come to. At that time I had no knowledge 
that Durrant had worked out the two schemes in tabulated form as 
they have appeared in the pages of this journal, it being only last year 
that I discovered this, when I asked him to help me tabulate the two 
works. »He then told me he had got the whole thing worked out. I 
