iSgi.] 



THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 



149 



(2.) It is obvious that when a new name is published its autlior 

 must be assumed to be he who signs tlie article in which it appears, 

 /;/ the absence of evidence to the contrary, 



(3.) Consequently, in quoting the new binomials which appeared 

 in the " Ent. Record," I had no option but to give the authors' names 

 as I did. If the Editor is really responsible, let it be so stated, and 

 we can quote accordingly. 



(4.) Of course, I hold most strongly that an Editor has no right 

 to alter the nomenclature of his contributors without expressly stating 

 that he has done so. Should he make such alterations without ex- 

 planation, and the contributors are unwilling to stand responsible for 

 them, they can only set matters right by publishing the facts. This 

 Mr. Lewcock has now done, and his name need no longer be quoted 

 for the binomial in question. — T. D. A. Cockerell, May 29th, 1891. 



The genus Acronycta and i is sub-divisions Viminia, Cuspidia, 

 AND Bisulcia. — Mr. Lewcock is right in his remarks re the genus 

 Acronycta . No one has ever worked out the genus ah ovo as Dr. 

 Chapman has done, and no author has ever proposed sub-di\asions 

 based on fundamental distinctions agreeing with Viminia, Cnspidia, and 

 Bisnlcia. Dr. Chapman has had to criticize the superficial paper on 

 the genus, published by Mr. Butler in the " Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond.," 

 1879, and I would kindly hint that this criticism is the root of Mr. 

 Butler's active opposition to Dr. Chapman's sub-genera. 



Mr. Butler well knows that as matters now stand, Hiibner's 

 Pharetra, Tri(fna, Rnd A rctoniyscis respectively have no connection with 

 Dr. Chapman'5 sub-genera, as Hiibner's species overlap in every 

 instance, and A rctoinyscis does not even contain tlie type of B isnlcia . 



I must own I do not see, if Hubner's genera are so bad, why Mr. 

 Butler should in future " be quoted as the author of the genera which 

 Hiibner has indicated." If these genera are to have a new sponsor, 

 in the name of common sense let an author wlio understands his 

 subject be held responsible. So far as I am concerned, and until I 

 can see a more satisfactory reason than the " ci^o " of Mr. Butler, I 

 shall continue to use them (Dr. Chapman's) as a testimony that names 

 are subservient to science, and not science subservient to nanies. 

 — J. \'V. TuTT, June ist, 1891. 



By the courtesy of the Editor I have been enabled to peruse 

 the foregoing notes, and with his permission add a few remarks 



