54 



Linnaeus proposed used for it with the result that there was no use left for 

 the name Phalaena." 



The following quotations are from a letter received from Miss A. Ellen 

 Prout ; and no doubt characterizes the general advanced European opinion. 

 The authors have the greatest admiration and respect for Miss Prout and 

 her esteemed brother; but regret they cannot agree with the views expressed. 



" 'Phalaena Noctua', employed by some of the older authors, seems to be 

 a name for the group (almost for the family Nociuidce) & cannot therefore 

 be regarded as having any generic significance ; it seems rather doubtful whether 

 we ought even to use Noctua Linn, or whether the genus should rather be 

 referred to one of the later authors who uses the name." 



"Noctua: Latreille gives pronuha L. as type (1810). Unless anvi^hing we 

 have overlooked invalidates this, or any earlier choice of type can be brought 

 forward, proimba therefore becomes the type of Noctua." 



"Unfortunately promiha appears to be also the true tjTpe of Triphcena Ochs. 

 (sec Dup. Pap. Fr. VIL 2. p. 71, 1829) ; in which case Triphcena must sink as 

 a synonym of Noctua." 



"Ncenia Steph. appears to be the oldest generic name known for typica, 

 which was placed by Ochs. (Schmett. Eur. IV. 70, 1816) in his undescribed 

 genus Mormo together with maura Linn. Treits. (in 1825) characterized the 

 genus (renaming Mania), retaining the same two species. Meig. (Eur. Sclim. 

 Ill, p. 213) restricts Mania to tnaura in which he is followed by subsequent 

 authors. Treits. places typica in Amphipyra. Ncenia appears to be the only 

 genus in which typica has appeared as tjpe; therefore the synonomy appears to 

 be Ncenia Steph., t. typica, L. or, if Stephen's diagnosis is insufficient, then 

 Ncenia Hmpsn,, t. typica." 



The authors believe that the tenth edition of Linnaeus' Systema Naturae, 

 1758, is consistent in the general application of the binomial system of nomen- 

 clature; (see Article 26, International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature). 

 In accordance with the proofs given above, they believe it absolutely necessary'- 

 to recognize the name Phalaena as a genus. As no species is definitely desig- 

 nated as tjpe, the tj^pe of the genus must be typica. This is in accordance with 

 Article 30b of the International Rules which definitely states: "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 constnied as 'type by original designation' ". 



The authors also believe that the names suggested by Linnaeus as divisions 

 of his genus Phala;na must be regarded as subgenera and credited to him. 

 Following Articles 6 and 7 of the International Rules, these names can be used 

 in th« generic sense. 



Following Article 9 of the Rules, the name Noctua becomes a synonym 

 of Phalaena. because the typical subgenus must have the same name as the 

 genus; and the same Rule which makes typica the type of Phalrena also makes 

 it the t>~pe of Noctua. 



Following Articles 4 and 5 of the Rules which state respectively, "The 

 name of a family is formed by adding the ending idae, the name of a sub- 



