502 MR. W. r. KlllUY ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF LEPIDOPTERA. 



partial synonym of Pieris. It has also happened when one 

 of HUbner's generic names has been borrowed from the ' Ver- 

 zeichniss,' or taken up from a subsequent figure, that, when the 

 genus has been again subdivided, the species that Iliibner him- 

 self placed in it has been placed in a new genus, and Hiibner's 

 old name applied to insects with which he was unacquainted. 

 But granting that it is not compulsory to adopt a plate-name 

 or catalogue-name for a new genus, it would certainly appear 

 that when this is done, the original application of the name 

 ought to be respected in all subsequent divisions of the genus- 

 It has sometimes liappened that the known type of a genus has 

 been subsequently placed in au older one, and the name retained 

 for the remainder. It might be questioned whether, under these 

 circumstances, the name of the genus ought not to be changed ; 

 but it scarcely appears necessary — although, if the oldest genus 

 were again subdivided, the second name would have to be re- 

 stored to the true type. Thus Bates removes the type of West- 

 wood's genus Megistanis to Boisduval's genus Aganistlios, re- 

 taining the name Megistanis for species which, although included 

 by Westwood in his genus, were not typical. This may be 

 allowed ; but if Agcmisthos should be again divided, it would be 

 necessary to restore Westwood's name to the true type of his 

 genus. 



I have now said enough to indicate some of tlie obstacles which 

 present themselves to any attempts at placing generic nomencla- 

 ture on a satisfactory basis, and, in conclusion, wish to allude to 

 some difficulties in specific nomenclature with which the Bules of 

 the British Association are insufficient to deal. An exception 

 in favour of Artedi and Scopoli is made with regard to the date 

 of the commencement of our nomenclatui'e. But other autliors 

 besides these have adopted the Linnean arrangement ; and it 

 would appear that much less confusion would be created by 

 making no exceptions whatever, and fixing the date authorita- 

 tively at 1767, than by adopting an earlier edition of the 

 ' Systema Naturae ' as our starting-point. It seems clear that 

 we must either take the earliest or the latest works of Linnaeus 

 to begin with ; and if we take the earliest, we are met by the dif- 

 ficulty that Linnaeus himself changed the names of several of his 

 own species in his different works. To admit the claims of any 

 author previous to the year 1767 would simply be to introduce 

 an element of additional and very serious confusion into our 



