220 THE entomologist's record. 



as to what is meant, and in addition all the species were figured. 

 Practically all entomologists accept the names of Felder's Heterocera, 

 if we accept the one I consider we should accept the other, I admit the 

 two cases are not precisely in the same category, as in the one case the 

 names and figures were published simultaneously, this being not so in 

 the other case, but against this is the fact that all of Hiibner's Tentamen 

 names referred to very well known species, and every lepidopterist who 

 was at all " au fait " with the subject knew well what insect Hiibner 

 was then referring to, and more important still, they referred to figures 

 that he had already published, and I am constrained to say that this 

 one fact makes the " nomina nuda " theory absolutely untenable. In 

 thus considering the validity of the Tentamen, I am seizing the 

 opportunity of raising the whole question agam, rather than using it 

 to criticise the value of the Check List so generously sent to those who 

 have given any little help in elucidating uncertain points. 



By way of criticism there are one or two things that call for re- 

 mark. For instance, I notice that Chamber's extraordinary spelling 

 is perpetuated, I must admit that I always write Polyonviiatus coridon, 

 which if corrected should be ^^ corydon," and it is very difficult to decide 

 where corrections should begin or end, but when the genitives are 

 almost invariably formed incorrectly, I almost think the grammarian 

 mio-ht step in. Article 19 of the Code does not, however, allow of the 

 emendation of names, except in the case of a " lapsus calami," or an 

 evident typographical error ; the question might well be raised again 

 in the international Sub-committees. 



The family Aegeriidae set me thinking, and I wonder whether 

 the authors have not seen the most recent writing in the Biologia Cent. 

 Am. on this group, or whether having seen it, they disagree, one could 

 wish in the latter case that reasons had been given in the preface. 

 There has been a considerable rearrangement of genera in the Micro- 

 lepidoptera comparing it with Dyar's list, and this is probably all to 

 the good ; Dyar closed his work with the Micropterygoidea, which 

 included the Hepialidae and the Micropterygoidae. Our authors make 

 them into two independent families, and this is no doubt the correct 

 view. 



It was as recently as November last that McDunnough wrote a very 

 important paper on alterations in many of the Nocfcuid genera and their 

 types, these have all been incorporated in the present Check List, and 

 will no doubt be adopted by most of the specialists of that important 

 section of the science. 



We are grateful for the general " get up " of the list, the printing 

 is very clear, and if the spacing is not as liberal as it was in Dyar's 

 work, yet the type is so clear that there will be no difficulty in rapidly 

 finding the object of one's search, whilst the index is excellent, the 

 good practice of putting the family and generic names in bold black 

 type having been followed. The region dealt with is America, north of 

 Mexico, and there is an addition of nearly 2000 species since Smith's 

 list of 1904. 



The work is a valuable contribution to all Lepidopterists, and I 

 cannot but recognise the usual generosity of our fellow workers on the 

 other side of the silver sea in distributing it so kindly to any who have 

 had the pleasure of aiding in it in however small a way. — G.T.B-B. 



