180 THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 
The Synonymy of sore of the Emerald Moths. 
By LOUIS B. PROUT, F.E.S. 
Although, fortunately, the specific names of several of our Emerald 
moths are established beyond the possibility of cayil, there are others 
which have already suffered untold tortures at the hands of synonymists, 
who, however, have not yet succeeded in placing them in a really 
satisfactory state. As I have now at hand the whole of the material 
necessary for a revision of them, I venture to ‘submit, as briefly as 
possible, the results of my investigations, worked out on the basis of 
the ‘‘ Merton Rules’ of nomenclature. 
1. Metrocampa maryaritata, Linn.—Though not related to the true 
Emerald family, the popular name of this species justifies my mentioning 
it under this heading. Many writers have tried to unite the margaritaria 
of the Fauna Suecica (1761), with the margaritata of the Systema 
Naturae, Kdit. xii. (1767), and this union has been sanctioned by 
Wernebure and Staudinger; but it is quite inexcusable, as Speyer 
pointed out in the Stett. Ent. Zeit., 1888, p. 209. The former 
(margaritaria) had a yellow Roman B in the middle of the superiors, 
and Speyer shrewdly suspected that ‘‘ Hab. Holmiz Cl.” was a mistake, 
and that it was an exotic; but being apparently unacquainted with 
Clerck’s Icones, he was unable to follow up the question further. In 
1764, Clerck (pl. 51-2) figures his maryaritarta, a species which is 
identified by Aurivillius (Recens. Mus. Ludov. Ulr., p. 180), as probably = 
Glyphodes crameralis,Gn.,andis called Morocosma maryaritaria by Lederer 
(Wien. Hunt. Monats., vii., p. 404) and Aurivilhus; Clerck or Linné 
evidently made some mistake as to the source whence it was obtained, 
as the species really comes from Amboina. 
As the name margaritata is not identical with margaritaria, and the 
latter is not a true Geometer but a Pyralid, there is no adequate 
reason for abandoning the former appellation for our Metrocampa, but 
its origin is to be dated from 1767, when it was erected as a new 
species, and not as having any connection with maryaritaria, Linn., 
‘Mauna Suecica,’’ Cl., ‘ Icones.”’ 
I may remark here that I have, after mature consideration, decided 
against applying the Merton Rule (or rather, Recommendation), No. 23, 
retrospectively : the rule in question expressly stipulates that ‘in the 
future’ generic names homonymous in derivation, but differing in 
suffix, should be avoided, and I therefore construe the recommendation 
concerning species in the same hght—‘ In the case of species, words 
identical in meaning but differing shghtly in form should |in the 
future.—L.B.P.] be avoided. I do not, therefore, regard Phalaena 
Geometra prunata, Linn., as invalidated by P. G. prunaria, and so on 
in many other cases. 
2. Geometia (odis) vernaria (Schitt.), ‘*Schmett. Wien.,” p. 97 
(1775).—This name cannot possibly stand. Hyeryone knows that 
rernaria, Schiff. (the Clematis Emerald), rests on an erroneous deter- 
mination of the rernaria of Linné, which the authors of the Vienna 
work definitely cite. Whether or not vernaria, Linn., was a synonym, 
as Staudinger asserts, does not affect the question, and his acceptance 
of vernaria, Schiff., is quite inconsistent with his rejection of Geometra 
(Cidaria) transversata, Thnb., nec Rott., and other similar instances. 
The following names have to be considered in connection with the 
