PREFACE. vil. 



personal predilections of the author, e.g., we maintain the Hyles 

 (euphorbiae ) group as generically distinct from the Celerio (gallii) 

 group, &c, but such differences are readily dealt with as they 

 involve no real divergence of practice by the authors. The 

 question of what have been termed generic " nomina nuda," i.e., 

 generic names without description, is on quite a different footing. 

 Hiibner, in 1796, figured populi, as Sphinx popidi. In 1806, he 

 published a scheme of classification, known popularly as the 

 Tentamen, one of the original copies of which is in our possession, 

 and an exact verbatim copy of which is published in the Entom. 

 Recoi-d, &c, xiv., pp. 167-168 (and which he afterwards worked 

 out, with modifications, in his other works at length), in which, 

 among others, he proposed Amorpha as the generic name of populi, 

 Manduca as the generic name of atropos, &c. To assert that 

 Amorpha is a "nomen nudum" appears to us quite untenable since it 

 was defined by its reference to populi (already figured by the same 

 author) as the type. It appears to us to be a much more clearly 

 defined generic term written simply — Amorpha populi — than does 

 Linne's Sphinx defined as — " Antennae medio crassiores s. utraque 

 extremitate attenuate subprismaticae. Alae deflexse — Ocellata, populi, 

 tiliae, nerii, convolvuli, ligustri, atropos, celerio, euphorbiae, tantalus, stella- 

 taru?n, culiciformis,filipendulae, phegea, statices," and many other hetero- 

 generic species. Our authors say that " Every name is a term for a 

 definition." If this be so, is the name Aniorphaless satisfactorily defined 

 by simply citing populi to it, than is Sphinx, described in such a way 

 that atropos and statices are included in it ? The fact is, the names of the 

 older authors must be used with commonsense and in the light of 

 our knowledge of the work of the authors ; the work of Linne 

 shows us that he looked upon ligustri as the typical Sphinx, we 

 know that Hiibner looked upon populi as the typical Amorpha and 

 atropos as the typical Manduca. This excursus will perhaps be held 

 by some to form an excellent illustration of the rapid approach 

 we appear to be making to an uniform code of nomenclature that 

 shall be accepted by all lepidopterists ! 



To meet the criticism offered on our last volume, that we had 

 ourselves in some cases used generic " nomina nuda," and that 

 descriptions of these were advisable to save them from being sunk 

 by those who disagreed with our action in using such, we took steps 

 to have this matter rectified by describing them in the February no. 

 of The Entomologist 'j Record, 1903, pp. 42-43 ; whilst, as it had 

 already become necessary to found and use new generic names 

 in our progress through the present volume, these also were 

 described in the March and April numbers of the same magazine 

 (op. cit., pp. 75-76, pp. 100-10 1 ). About a week after the latest of 

 these descriptions had appeared, the Revision of the Sphingidae was 

 published, when we found that we had unknowingly and unfortunately 

 forestalled some of the new generic names that Messrs. Rothschild 

 and Jordan had therein created, e.g., Clarina, Tutt, Ent. Rec, xv., 

 p. 76 (March 15th, 1903) forestalls Berutana, Roths, and Jordan, 

 Revision, &>c, p. 519, April 21st, 1903), etc. One or two others are in like 

 case, and our names must in these instances stand. In that part of our 

 book (from p. 297 to end) printed after the publication of the 

 Revision, we have, of course, utilised Messrs. Rothschild and Jordan's 



