112 THE ENtOMOtiOGlST. 



Moths/ published in 1882, at pp. 22, 23, the author adopts 

 Hubner's stirps Apatelce, in the singular number, to supersede 

 Acronycta (literally Acronictat sic, Ochs.)j and subdivides it into 

 groups as follows : — 



Trisena, 



to include 20 



Jocheaera, 



2 



Merolonche, 



2 



Acronycta, 



„ 3 



Megacronycta, 



3 



Apatela, 



» 14 



Lepitoreuma, 



5 



Arctomyscis, 



1 



Mastiphanes, 



4 



Eulonche, 



3 



Grote's species, when placed under Hiibner's generic names, 

 are nearly allied to the European species referred to these genera 

 by Hiibner. 



When a genus has already been broken up into about a dozen 

 named groups, it is absurd for a later author to ignore the types 

 of those groups, and to break up the original genus on his own 

 lines without reference to the work already done by his prede- 

 cessors ; it is, in fact, a wilful burdening of the synonymy with 

 names which will only be used by those unacquainted with the 

 laws of zoological nomenclature, and will consequently be a 

 source of considerable confusion. 



Viminia, Chapman, falls before Pharetra. 

 Cuspidia, „ „ Tricena. 



Bisulcia, „ „ Arctomyscis. 



Supposing Dr. Chapman to be in accord with those authors 

 who are unconstitutional enough to ignore Hiibner ; he cannot, 

 upon any ground whatever, ignore either my paper or the works 

 of Grote ; so that the names proposed by Hiibner must stand, 

 even though the authorship of the divisions so named be denied 

 to him, and Butler or Grote be quoted as author of the genera 

 which Hiibner indicated. 



Natural History Museum, South Kensington. 



[I am rejoiced to find that, in the above communication, Mr. 

 Butler has dealt with the proposed renaming of the old divisions 

 of the genus Acronycta by Dr. Chapman : not having lately been 

 paying much attention to the Heterocera, I could not take the 

 matter up in a satisfactory manner. I felt that the suppression 

 of the name Acronycta could not be justified, as it was at variance 

 with all the canons of zoological nomenclature. With regard to 

 the proper spelling of the name, Acronicta, as used by Ochsen- 

 heimer, was an error, and was early corrected to Acron^/cta, in 

 accordance with the spelling of the Greek words from which the 

 name is derived.— J. J* Weir.] 



