_ Introdnctory Remarks. 
It will probably be advisable to give the reasons why it has been 
decided to give the following digest of Hiibner’s Tentamen, with all the 
detail that it involves. 
It is many years ago since Mr. Durrant, in one of his nomencla- 
torial investigations, was led to write the great bulk of what follows. 
He did not then quite complete it, but present day necessities have led 
him to again go over it and complete one or two details that were 
lacking. 
What then is the real position and authority of the Tentamen ? 
It was published by Hiibner in 1805 or 1806 as a single sheet, and 
was doubtless sent out to his subscribers with one of the parts of his 
vol. V. which was then in course of publication. 
Hubner himself definitely refers to it by name in the preface of his 
Verz. bek. Schm., giving its title, and saying explicitly that he had 
forthwith made it known, stating also that it, the Tentamen, formed 
the ground work of his volume that he was then publishing, viz.: the 
Verzetchniss bekannter Schmetterlinge. This preface was issued with the 
first sixteen pages of the work just mentioned, in the year 1816. 
This proves to my mind that the Tentamen was duly published and 
issued, and that it was known to entomologists. We have, however, 
confirmatory evidence. In the same year, 1816, Ochsenheimer issued 
his vol. IV. of the Schmetterlinge von Europa, and he says in the preface 
to that volume that Hiibner had published (herausgegeben) the plan 
_ of a system of insects in which he had given family and generic names, 
and he goes on to say that ‘the sheet (page) only came to me long 
after the publication of my third volume, therefore I could not adoptit 
earlier.”’ Ochsenheimer therefore had a copy of the Tentamen, and 
would have adopted it in his earlier volume had he received it sooner. 
In 1862 Hagen, who was a most careful collaborator, refers to it in 
vol. I. of his Bibliotheca, as a known paper of the author’s, giving its 
date as well before 1810. With this evidence it appears to me to be 
quite unreasonable and unjust to ignore its publication. 
This brings me to the immediate cause of publishing Mr. Dunrentt 8 
work on this much debated paper. Barnes and McDunnough have 
recently issued a Check List of North American Lepidoptera, and it fell 
to my lot to review (Hint. Rec., vol. 29, p. 217) this useful list, 
and in doing so I could not refrain from referring to their de- 
clining to recognise the Tentamen as valid, and I therefore 
gave briefly some of the evidence of its publication. I felt, 
however, that it was unsatisfactory to leave it with a mere pro- 
test, and knowing that Mr. Durrant had tabulated the whole of the 
paper in question, giving the references, not only to the family names 
but also to the generic and specific ones, together with citations to the 
works and the figures already published by Hiibner, I felt it would be 
a) real gain to this branch of science to bring the whole matter for- 
ward again, and to get the authority of the Tentamen definitely estab- 
lished, as I think it will be; or, if perchance the negative evidence is 
etrong enough to outweigh the positive, we who support its validity 
may have to bow before evidence that may be brought against it, but 
such evidence must be unimpeachable. Under any circumstances, 
however, I feel that the entomological world is, or should be, under a 
debt of gratitude to Mr. Durrant for his laborious and painstaking and 
careful investigation.—G. T, Beraunn-Baker. 
