172 



INSECTS OF SAMOA. 



national Code of Zoological Nomenclature : "If in the original publication of a 

 genus, typicus or typus is used as a new specific name for one of the species, 

 such use shall be construed as ' type by original designation.' " 



The next name that I propose to change is " Acronyctinae.'' Acronicta 

 Ochsenheimer, Schmett. Eur., iv, p. 62, 1816, was cited by Hampson as " non 

 descr." (incidentally with a wrong date, 1815). I accept without question the 

 decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Opinion 

 97) regarding Hiibner's Tentamen, but I feel that in view of the difficulty of 

 discovering the types of such genera as Acronicta, we are entitled to take 

 advantage of all available facts. Ochsenheimer gives an indication of what 

 he means by his Acronicta in citing " Apatelae Hiibn." We know that he did 

 not see Hiibner's V erzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge, 1816, before his own work 

 appeared in 1816, and I can find no evidence that even Treitschke had seen it 

 when he published the first volume (V) continuing Ochsenheimer's work. It 

 follows therefore that " Apatelae Hiibn," referred to the Tentamen, where we 

 read : "Apatelae Apatela aceris." This was a species figured by Hiibner in 

 his Sammlung Europdische Schmetterlinge in 1802. Even though Hiibner's 

 Tentamen cannot be accepted as valid, in my opinion it was a fact in the hands 

 of Ochsenheimer, a verifiable fact to guide us in interpreting the meaning of 

 Ochsenheimer's genera, in which he often included a number of species. I see, 

 therefore, no reason for not adopting the generic name Acronicta Ochsenheimer, 

 1816, in place of the later Acronycta Treitschke ; andin consequence, I propose that 

 the subfamily name should be spelt Acronictinae, in order to avoid confusion. 



I have used here in listing the subfamily names of the Sphingidae those 

 adopted by Rothschild and Jordan in their " Revision of the Sphingidae," 

 although I am a little uncertain about the stability of Acherontiinae, Philam- 

 pelinae and Choerocampinae. It seems to me that the usual practice is for 

 the typical subfamily to bear a name based on the name of the type genus of the 

 family. This applies to Acherontiinae, but in the case of the other two names 

 I am not yet able to follow the disposition of the genera Philampelus and 

 Choerocampa. 



Various names are available for the family Perophoridae, the name of the 

 type genus being a homonym (cf. Perophora, Wiegmann, 1835), and necessitating 

 a new name. I follow Barnes and McDunnough and use the name Lacosomidae. 



The division of the family Psychidae into subfamilies seems to me so 

 involved, that for the purposes of this list I have left the family undivided. 



