53 



NOMENCLATURE 



In the course of preparation of a Synonymical Catalogue of the Lepidoptera, several 

 rather difficult points of nomenclature present themselves — and the authors consider that 

 their present ideas should be published, placed before the Entomological public so that 

 criticism and discussion will precede the publication of tlie Catalogue. It is their desire 

 to have tl]is work comply as nearly as possible with the present International Rules of 

 Zoological Nomenclature. Criticisms and suggestions will be very welcome. 



Thanks are due to Dr. C. W. Stiles for his kindness in reviewing parts of this 

 paper, and for his personal opinions thereon. 



In the Systema Naturae, "Characteres Insectorum", Linnaeus divides the 

 Insects into seven divisions (Orders ?) ; Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera, 

 Neuroptera, Hymenoptera, Diptera, and Aptera; each of which are divided into 

 genera numbered consecutively vk^ith the genera in other classes, — the whole work 

 beginning with genus 1, Homo, and ending with the genus 353, Furia; 230 

 being Thrips, 231 Papilio, 232 Sphinx, 233 Phalaena, and 234 Libellula, 



At the back of the work is found "Nomina Generica" which includes 

 Sphinx, Papilio and Phalaena but does not include the names of the subdivisions 

 of Phalaena, i. e., Noctua, etc. 



Further, Linneus places all of the names Noctua, Attacus, etc., in italics 

 whereas his Phalaena is represented by an ordinary Roman capital P., and his 

 specific names "atlas", etc., by ordinary Roman typ&. 



Additional proof along the same line is that the species in each genus 

 throughout the work are numbered consecutively, — in Phalaena #1 being "P. 

 Attacus atlas" and #460 being "P. Alucita hexadactyla". 



As regards the status of Bombyx, Noctua, Geometra, etc., the authors feel 

 they cannot do better than to quote from a letter received from Professor T. 

 Chester Bradley of Cornell University, in which Professor Bradley substan- 

 tiates their views : 



"Also, he (Linnaeus states that Bombyx, Noctua, Geometra, etc., are 

 Phalanges into which Phalaena is divided. It is perfectly evident that he uses 

 those terms exactly in the sense that we use subgenera to-day, and I think we 

 can and must treat them exactly as if they had been proposed as subgenera 

 which, to all intents and purposes, they were. That is to say they were pro- 

 posed as a minor division of the genus given uninomial group name. This 

 interpretation is further substantiated by a study of this genus Sphinx, be- 

 cause in that genus he divides off the first group of species as Sphinx legiti- 

 niae. That is to say, they represent the typical subgenus and he gives sub- 

 generic names to the other groups included under Sphinx, such as Sesia. He 

 did not do this in Phalaena but gave a different subgeneric name to each of 

 the groups into which he divided it. It is evident that that is the reason that 

 Phalaena, as a name, has been disregarded. Each subgeneric name as pro- 

 posed by Linnaeus was accepted eventually as a genus, and the name that 



