THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 31 
does not seem to be warranted by the Rules of the British Association. 
Rule 12th says:—“ A name which has never been clearly defined in some 
published work, should be changed for the earliest name by which the 
object shall have been so defined.” And in the explanatory remarks it 
as said, “Definition properly implies a distinct exposition of essential 
characters, and in all cases we conceive this to be indispensable.” 
Now this Rule merely embodied the feeling and practice of naturalists, 
and it had been acted on for thirty years, before it had been formally 
enunciated, in this very case of Hubner, whose work had been systemati- 
cally set aside as an authority by most European Entomologists, because 
it was felt that his so-called genera were mere guesses founded on facies 
alone,—happy guesses, no doubt, sometimes—but as frequently wrong as 
right, and wholly without such definition as was held, even in his own 
day, to be required to constitute a new genus. Boisduval expressly states 
this, and his non-recognition of Hubner’s genera has been followed in 
almost all the great systematic works which have since been published. 
If we take Hubner’s first four genera and the characters he gives them, 
we shall be able to. judge of the reasons for this course. They are as 
follows:— 
| DESIR TS Sc nu LL. upper wings half banded. 
LEGG LE EE NN “ ‘“ one-banded. 
OU US LS PR an i ‘ twice-banded 
TIRE os os | D NT CAC both wings banded. 
’ Such a mode of defining genera, though it has the merit of being sim- 
ple and symmetrical, is undoubtedly superficial, and it can only be by the 
‘purest accident that a group so characterized can correspond in extent to 
any real genus. * * * In Mr. Kirby’s own work, we find Hubner’s con- 
demnation in almost every page, in the utter want of agreement between 
his groups and modern genera. The modern restricted genus Helicon- 
ius, for instance, contains species belonging. to seven Hubnerian genera ; 
Pieris comprises five, and Thecla twelve of these hap-hazard groups; 
while, in other cases, the species comprising Hubner’s groups are divided 
among several unrelated modern genera. * * * * The names sought 
to be reinstated, rank as mere catalogue names for want of proper defini- 
tion, and should therefore never be quoted. * * * Even as a matter 
of justice it may be maintained that we should recognize the careful and 
elaborate definitions of a Doubleday or Westwood, rather than the childish 
guesses of a Hubner. * * * The proper course to be taken is to rein- 
