-destroyed, i. e., if the name thus changed were pre-occupied at the time it was originally 

 proposed. 



2. When an author once publishes a name which is manifestly incorrect in ortho- 

 graphy, and in a later work corrects his own error, shall we adopt his correction ? e. g., 

 Treitsehke published the genus Pendina, but later corrects it to Penthina. 



Dr. Horn thought that where the derivation of a name was stated, a manifest error 

 might be corrected by the author, but it would depend somewhat upon how general the use 

 of the name had become; he was inclined to adhere to the name as originally written. 



Mr. Mann also thought it would depend upon how much the name had entered into 

 xise. If it had not become known or used as erroneously written, and the author's correc- 

 tion was made in a reasonable time, it should be adopted. 



3. Should the termination of the specific name be made to agree with the generic in 

 gender.' e. a., Zelier and some others write Tortrix viridana, Exartema permundanum, 

 .and Lophoderus ministranus.- Shall this rule be adopted, or shall we adopt the ending 



irrespective of the gender of the genus? 



Dr. Horn said that in Coleoptera the rule was that specific and generic names should 

 Agj-ee in gender, and he thought the rule should be universal. Where, however, a termin- 

 ation had some special signification, where it indicated the group to which the species 

 belonged, there, if it had come into general usage, he would favour uniform terminations. 



Mr. Mami did not believe in uniform terminations. 



4. When a, Tortricid species is described with a name not ending. in ana, should this 

 be changed to ana ? e. g.. Carpocapsa pomonella Linn. Prof. Fernald himself was opposed 

 to such a change. Dr. Morris suggested that Linne's names be left as he made them. 



5. To what extent should the law of priority be made use of 1 Shall we make use of 

 the oldest name, even if the species has been known under another for a long time 1 If 

 not, for how long a time must a name universally or generally be in use to take precedence 

 over an older name ? 



The sentiment of the meeting was strongly expressed that so much discussion without 

 agreement had been hitherto had on that. question, that no universally accepted con- 

 clusion could be reached. 



6. What should be taken as the starting point in nomenclature 1 Some have taken 

 Tie 12th Ed. of Linne's Syst. Nat, while others have taken the 10th Edition. 



Dr. McCook thought the rules heretofore adopted by the British Association covered 

 that point in favour of the 12th Edition. 



Prof. Fernald replied that many of the subscribers to that rule had now changed 

 their opinions on that point, and had taken the 10th Edition as a starting point. 



Mr. Smith said, the Noctuidae alone considered, it made no practical difference which 

 'edition was used, and so far as Tortricid* were concerned, he did not think that any 

 practical difficulty would arise, whichever edition was used. 



Prof. Fernald expressed surprise that so much discussion should have arisen over 

 Hubner's works, and that his names should have been so universally rejected, while 

 ijuenee's names in the Index methodicus, unaccompanied by a word of description, were 

 -recognised and used without question. Hiibner at least gave some sort of definition to his 

 divisions, genera or coiti, so called. 



Dr. Horn suggested that there might be some analogy to the cases of Erichson and Mot- 

 schulsky : both of these had created some genera, not, or incompletely described, but while 

 Erichson's genera had been universally adopted, those of Motschulsky had been as univer- 

 sally discarded. The reason was, Erichson's genera usually meant something and had some 

 solid foundation, and he himself had credited to Erichson some genera first described by 



' Dr. Horn ) under the names proposed by Erichson. Motschulsky's genera, on the 

 •contrary, were based upon the flimsiest characters as a rule, and had no value whatever. 



Mr. Smith said that as to the Noctuida; at least, the parallel would hold. Hubner's 

 genera were very largely devoid of all foundation, while Guenee, as a rule, made pretty 

 good genera and mostly described them. 



Prof. Fernald thought this not true of the Tortricidas ; that quite as many names of 

 G-uenee were baseless as of those proposed by Hubner. 



