494 MK. W. ]?, KIUBY ON THE GENERIC NOMENCI-A.TURE 



On the necessity of a Reform in the Generic Nomenclature of 

 Diurnal Lepidoptera, illustrated by a Review of the Genera 

 proposed from the time of Linnaeus to the year 1816. By 

 W. r. KiUBT, Assistant in the Museum of the Royal Dublin 

 Society, and Member of the Entomological Society of Lon- 

 don, &c. (Communicated by H. T. Stainton, Esq., Sec. L.S.) 



[Eead December 16, 1869.] 



The rules regulating specific nomenclature are tolerably well 

 understood and acted upon ; but, on account of the unstable na- 

 ture of genera, and the want of uniformity in the practice of 

 authors respecting them, indescribable confusion has arisen in 

 generic nomenclature. It is scarcely too much to say that no 

 recognized rules on the subject exist at all, and that the attempt 

 to apply any rules, even of the most obvious fairness, would re- 

 sult in the subversion of the names of very large numbers of 

 typical groups. At least this is the case in Entomology, and 

 doubtless in other branches of natural history also. 



It is a convenient practice to take the first species of a genus 

 as the type, when no satisfactory reason can be shown to the 

 contrary ; and, on December 7, 1868, I communicated a paper to 

 the Entomological Society of London, embodying the propo- 

 sitions cited below, which, for the sake of argument, I pushed in 

 illustration to their utmost extent. 



1. The first species, or first section of a genus, is, in absence 

 . of satisfactory evidence to the contrary, to be considered typical. 



2. The founder of a genus alone has the right to restrict the 

 name to any portion of it except the first. 



3. If a species be figured, it is, as a rule, to be considered the 

 type, although it may not be the first on the list. 



The alterations that the too stringent application of these 

 rules would cause in nomenclature were so serious, that tlie 

 Entomological Society gave it as its verdict : — that the first sec- 

 tion or species of a genus was not necessarily the type ; that a 

 retrospective application of any such rule was out of the ques- 

 tion ; and that an author in subdividing a genus is at liberty to 

 apply the old name to any section, but is bound to retain it 

 for some portion of the original genus. There was, however, a 

 difference of opinion on this point, — some arguing that, when a 

 genus is subdivided, the sections ought to receive new names ; 



