57 



older authors, is evident from his having at one time re-named C alasymb oius astylus, as 

 S. integerrima ; so that Harris's synonyms in the Sphingidce are rather numerous. Dr. 

 Hagen's argument that Dr. Harris knew Hiibner, and rose superior to his illustrations, 

 deliberately, as it were, re-naming his species is a very remarkable one. I do not see 

 any reason why a similar argument might not be used as against other authors whom Dr. 

 Harris ignores. I believe that Dr. Harris would have been only too glad to have availed 

 himself of Hiibner's accurate determinations had he known of their existence. I conclude, 

 therefore, that Dr. Morris is perfectly right in his remarks in a foot-note to /. inclusa, in 

 Flint's edition, and that Dr. Hagen is wrong. It takes time to prepare and issue a 

 volume of copper-plates, while a brief description can be written and printed very quickly. 

 It is true that Dr. Hagen endeavours to throw doubts upon this decision, but equally so, 

 that he does so from prejudice against Hiibner, as I shall show. Besides these two 

 illustrated works, Hiibner issued a sheet called the " Tentamen," probably in 1803, in 

 which he simply proposed a number of new genera for European moths, giving no 

 description, and merely citing the type by its scientific name. He then commenced the 

 issue of his " Yerzeichniss," in 1816 ; in this, he endeavored to arrange the Lepidoptera 

 of the whole world in a large number of genera, the diagnoses of which are very brief and 

 usually unsatisfactory. To understand the importance of these works, we must go back 

 a little. 



Linnaeus arranged the whole Lepidoptera under the " Genera " Papilio, Sphinx, 

 Bombyx, Noctua, Geometra, Pyralis, Tortrix, Tinea ; which now are considered as types 

 of " families." Fabricius increased these genera by several, such as Zygcena and 

 Hesperia ; Latreille added, C 'allimorpha, etc., but the modern idea of a genus is antici- 

 pated first by Hiibner. Unfortunately Hiibner took no pains to give structural features, 

 or to properly limit his genera. Colour and pattern were used by him in his scant defini- 

 tions, instead of real form of parts, and while the number of his genera is excessive, the 

 species are quite often unhappily associated. On the other hand, Hiibner in important points 

 showed himself ahead of his time. He correctly divided the Hesperidce into two groups. 

 He is the first to associate the genera Bombycia and Thyatira, and after all is said and 

 done, his arrangement of the whole sub-order shows that he must have made continuous 

 studies to suggest so much that is permanently valuable. In Europe, the successors of 

 Ochsenheimer and the Viennese school of Lepidopterists which had nourished since the 

 " Wiener Yerzeichniss," neglected Hubner and misapplied his terms. From this neglect 

 arose of late years the attempt to restore Hubner's terms to their undoubted right, and 

 this attempt met with a somewhat violent opposition in certain quarters. It is an easy 

 task to overhaul and criticise these works of Hubner, and the style in which it was per- 

 formed by Mr. W. H. Edwards in the pages of the Canadian Entomologist, leaves little 

 to be desired in the way of abuse. But unwilling to stand alone in the matter, Mr. 

 Edwards enlisted the aid of Dr. Hagen, and the plan was brought into execution by 

 which Hubner should be ruled out altogether. It was to show that Ochsenheimer, 

 Hubner's contemporary, and a leading authority, simply ignored Hubner's genera, and that 

 Hubner himself attached no importance to his Tentamen. To do this, Dr. Hagen trans- 

 lated a sentence out of Ochsenheimer, and by ingeniously inserting a full stop, changed 

 its meaning. " This sheet (the Tentamen) I saw long after the printing of my third 

 volume was done," writes Ochsenheimer, and here, Mr. Edwards following Dr. Hagen, 

 inserts the. stop. But Ochsenheimer in reality goes on without any stop ; " therefore I 

 could not earlier have adopted anything out of it." And Ochsenheimer did adopt 

 Hubner's genera out of the Tentamen in his fourth volume, such as Cosmia, Xylena, 

 Agrotis, Graphiphora, etc., and where he cites them in the synonymy, as Heliophila, we 

 have no ground for the procedure, since Ochsenheimer's own genera have also no diagnoses. 

 Dr. Hagen additionally gives us 1816 instead of 1810 for the date of Ochsenheimer's 

 third volume, apparently to spin out the time since the issue of the Tentamen ; the exact 

 date of the latter being in some doubt. From 1802 to 1806, various dates have been 

 given to it, while probably it was printed in 1803. In Europe, of late years, Hubner's 

 genera, such as could be used, have been adopted, and while I am of opinion that no 

 changes should be lightly made in our existing nomenclature on account of a generic title 

 proposed by Hubner and that a large number of Hubner's generic titles must be dropped 



